Talk:Wildlife corridor

Merge Wildlife corridor into Habitat corridor

 * It is one and the same thing and both terms should redirect to Habitat corridor. By mistake instead of using redirect a separate article titled "Wildlife corridor" has been created instead.

The main term is Habitat corridor and wildlife uses it.

Kindly merge these articles.

Also see Habitat fragmentation, and Wildlife crossing for a little different but a related concept.

mrigthrishna (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Respectfully disagree; in California & U.S. Wildlife corridor is more commonly used / familiar in land use planning and media discussion. Have linked to it often & Habitat corridor would be more vague, though technically correct also. Thanks--- Look2See1  t a l k →  06:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – But please merge into Wildlife corridor for now. If needed, we can rename it later. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 03:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: I originally used the term "Wildlife Corridor" in a letter to Dave Foreman when he was in confinement to get him to work with the "system" instead of against it. I used the term "Wildlife Corridor" because it is wildlife's usage of the corridor that makes it function as a repository for local native flora and fauna to reseed local damaged ecosystems and function as a migration route connecting islands of fragmented wild land like parks, sanctuaries, and refuges. I originally saw Wildlife Corridors working in Vietnam 1969-70. I asked Mai, a kind-looking naphamed scarred girl near Bong Son, why people didn't build houses in the long swathes of undisturbed land that ran like corridors between the mountains and the sea? She replied, "Buddha told us not to". I asked, "Why", but she didn't know. I guessed that Buddha was thinking of the animals' needs and also the peoples' needs by keeping the elephants, boars, tigers, and deer out of the rice paddies. The term "Wildlife Corridor" has a history. I hope you don't change it. Davidrgill (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to be ac pretty dead discussion, but do we have enough of a consensus to have habitat merged into wildlife corridor? I am also for "wildlife" as the primary naming. I'm going to wait a few days for a response and then I'll go forward with the merge. Minnecologies t,c 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Connection between ....?
What area's do habitat corridors link ? They aren't always "habitats" of species as some species simply move to another area (and thus haven't come from there). For example, countries that are rapidly urbanizing move species out of their habitats. It's probably better to describe them as rural areas or non-developed areas, but I'm not sure what term to use.

If a suitable term is found, perhaps Ijburg can be mentioned in the article, and the use of "no go" areas can be mentioned in the success of the setup of this "semi-urbanised" area. These zones share resamblances with Bill Mollison's zoning; see http://www.permaculture.org/nm/images/uploads/Permaculture_Techniques.pdf

81.241.109.254 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the two topics should be merged as they are different only semantically. Whether the merged topic should be entitled "Wildlife" or "Habitat" corridor depends upon two things. First, "wildlife" means different things in different continents. Some confine the meaning to animals, as in "non-game wildlife", but others include also other kingdoms, especially plants (as in the UK and Europe); this counts against "wildlife", as the term becomes internationally ambiguous. Second, is that "habitat" is the niche space of a species (fundamental or realised), so use of this term would clarify the fact that the topic is specific. For example, the habitat of a woodland plant bird might require branches and trunks for foraging and for nest holes (as in a nuthatch), whereas the habitat of a pastoral bird might require distance from cover, and a turf length suitable both for foraging and for hiding a nest (as in some larks). Unfortunately most "corridors" in the literature and proposed are not related to particular species, so that they are "biotope" corridors. But given that most practitioners don't know what a biotope is, I would advocate "habtiat" as a the nearest available term. Clearly there should be cross-referencing, so that those looking for the one term will be referred to the article successfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.38.125 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They should be merged. The issue of what to title the article is a separate and secondary issue. I think there's a consensus on merger, and the "habitat corridor" article is the larger one, so I vote use that name and redirect "wildlife corridor" to that. Here's a checklist of things to move over from the "wildlife corridor" article:

- Examples of corridors

- List of major corridors

- "See also" list of links

- Some elements of the intro

I will start on this in a few days if no one objects... Jaywilson (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Started copying material over today, finished examples and intro. Jaywilson (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Finished copying list of major corridors and see also list. Jaywilson (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move
While it was correct to merge the two articles, the remaining article should be the more WP:COMMONNAME. In my experience I've only ever heard these things referred to as wildlife corridors or green corridors, never as habitat corridors. As I stated at Talk:Wildlife corridor, This Google Books Ngram seems to back up that experience. No evidence has (yet) been presented to counter that, so I suggest we move this article to Wildlife Corridor.  W a g g e r s  TALK  09:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, most of those supporting the merge in the discussion above also supported "Wildlife Corridor" as the term to use.  W a g g e r s  TALK  09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No objections lodged, so going ahead with the move.  W a g g e r s  TALK  11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge
I think that this article should be merged with habitat corridor --Crabcakecrabcake (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the category Conservation because Conservation and Conservation biology seem to be overlapping, but Conservation seems to be a more comprehensive selection of the same topics. Do you agree Alan Leifting? if so then add it back.

I agree that this article should be merged with habitat corridor, for the simple reason that they mean the same thing. By definition, wildlife lives in a habitat. Jaywilson (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Mentions to prompt notifications: Jaywilson, Crabcakecrabcake The question is not really whether they should be merged but which is the more common term? I've only ever heard of these being referred to as "wildlife corridors" and the Google Ngram seems to reflect my experience.  W a g g e r s  TALK  08:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I started doing the merge today. Right now just copying over material from wildlife to habitat. When done, will redirect wildlife to habitat. Once the merge is done, it could always be decided to change name of article. Jaywilson (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Article has been redirected to Habitat Corridor. All content has been moved to Habitat Corridor except for the section on Bird Corridors, which was moved to the Range (biology) article as it pertained to a particular type of habitat range and not to the concept of connective corridors. Jaywilson (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I think it was right to merge, but the merge should have been so that Wildlife Corridor was the remaining article as it's the more common name.  W a g g e r s  TALK  09:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * , you were right. Thanks for making the change and sorry, I didn't see some of your comments back in May. Jaywilson (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wildlife corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201180024/http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115310689250.html to http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115310689250.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Edge effects
The section discussing the possibility of an edge effect being induced by wildlife corridors describes edge effects as ecologically negative, reducing biodiversity, while the specific article about edge effects describes them as beneficial for biodiversity. What is the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.82.35 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Carbon credit forests
Forests created to produce carbon credits could benefit wildlife corridors. Requires GIS tools to find suitable locations though, help on this is appreciated: Carbon credit software tools --Genetics4good (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, if you want to write about this in a Wikipedia article you require a Reliable Source; assembling examples yourself is called Original Research, which is forbidden. Or if you meant you want to do this for non-Wiki reasons, then this talk page is Not A Forum and you should be asking for help on other websites. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Conservation biology
— Assignment last updated by Dlatta (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Evaluations section
The evaluations section has had everything but the uncertainty section removed despite copious citation for the pros and cons of wildlife corridors, which to me feels like it violates the neutrality of Wikipedia; either there shouldn't be an evaluation at all, or it shouldn't be merely about the "uncertainty" of wildlife corridors. As someone with a wildlife management education, there truly is little uncertainty compared to the benefits. But I'm a brand new editor here, so I don't want to overstep... thoughts? Bloodstoppin (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)