Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecoregions/Archive 1

Interwiki links
Interesting project, but first... why is English listed a dozen or two times as other language links? The links go to various related articles, but I can't see them in the code. Tokerboy, 7 February 2003
 * Seems there's some bug that makes 'en:' not go to English Wikipedia from here but piles up the links on top. Taking out the "en:" from each might work fine.  But the bug should be fixed. -- 7 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.162 (talk • contribs).
 * They automatically go to the English wikipedia, so I've removed them. Tokerboy

List of ecoregions?
Is there an official list somewhere that divides the world into discrete and definable ecoregions, or is it just a consensus kinda thing? Tokerboy, 7 February 2003
 * Nope, there's an official list, and if you look at ecoregion and follow the links at the bottom to the World Wildlife Fund's Map (also publsihed in National Geogrpahic), you'll see they've pretty much nailed it down. 30 years of work... not likely it'll be obsoleted any time soon! -- 7 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.162 (talk • contribs).
 * Interesting. I suppose the first step would be importing and wikifying the list. Should be at Gizhou Plateau broadleaf and mixed forests with a redirect from PA0101, I'm thinking.Tokerboy
 * Yup, makes sense. The short phrase can be used on maps with links, and we can worry about Latin and French and Chinese later... ;0  -- 7 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.162 (talk • contribs).
 * I don't suppose you know someplace public domain that has a map of a continent with each one highlighted, do you?
 * I am sure there was such a map at the WWF or National Geographic, and that it was visible at least for a while. Some ecology department at some school must have done publicly redistributable ones by now... maybe not for all continents though. -- 7 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.162 (talk • contribs).
 * The geographical descriptions at the WWF site are pretty vague -- I'm not sure which the Chesapeake Bay is in, for example, and a map would be helpful. Something similar to the US state ones (see Texas for an example) would be great. Tokerboy
 * I think the US ones are best documented right now, probably mostly by grad student projects. Might be good to add to the WikiProject the nasty task of going around to find the grad students and asking if they'll release their work under the GFDL... most of them might be willing to do so, especially if we also improve them somehow and (of course, by definition) they can reintegrate them into their theses etc.
 * Also, I think the WWF or National Geographic might be willing to release at least some version of the map (maybe black and white versions with outlines and lat/long coordinates)? under GFDL - they are all 'save the world' types right?  If they see what we're doing they might even give us a grant to do it.  Hmmm...  See funding  -- 7 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.162 (talk • contribs).
 * ideally, a GIS could be included in Wikipedia. Would be very useful for the atlas stuff. The best one I know is the one from the firm ESRI (and incidentally the one used by NG). But Esri is not at all the type 'save the world' and their SIG is very expensive. Hum....Mav being an expert of GIS...or a future expert...might help us here -- 9 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.13.220.198 (talk • contribs).

French divisions
Just a comment : French people go further in the division. Most of the country is currently being divided in what we call régions naturelles (some overlapping with surrounding nations). There are about 250 of them just for our country. -- 8 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.13.220.60 (talk • contribs).
 * That is far more than the number of ecoregions, which is only 867 for the whole planet. What you are talking about is probably "micro-climate"s or small "biome"s.  But yes, the list of Palearctic ecoregions said to be in France ought to be checked, to see how those 250 fit into the dozens of ecoregions that are there - the French system is probably just finer-grained, I doubt there are major differences. -- 8 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.40 (talk • contribs).

But strangely enough, I see that canadian seem to consider régions naturelles as englobing ecoregions. Weird. Totally different definitions apparently... -- 8 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.13.220.60 (talk • contribs).
 * Not 'Canadian', but US National Geographic Society and World Wildlife Fund. The Canadian Geographic Survey, like the French govt', has a higher resolution map of biomes and watersheds, but the ecoregions are larger units.  Good we spotted this, as "regions naturelles" are obviously more like "biomes" than "ecoregions".  The word "bioregion" is also common, and perhaps we should translate the french phrase as "bioregion" meaning something smaller than "ecoregion" - sensible since biology is about smaller things than ecology... -- 8 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.40 (talk • contribs).
 * hum. No. We define biome as being macro-ecosystem caracterised by a dominant vegetation type, strongly related by temperature and rainfall. Biomes are rather limited in terms of numbers (something like a dozen), and they are unrelated to geographic references. Exemples we give are toundra, taiga, tropical savana...


 * In comparison regions naturelles are absolutely related to geographic references, they usually are named from a specific place. Hence, régions naturelles and biomes are not in the same frame of references.


 * Biome and ecosystem are in the same frame of reference to us (macro and "regular" level.


 * Ecoregions and regions naturelles are in the same frame of reference, régions naturelles are just much much more precise than écorégions (about 250 régions naturelles for about 4/8 écorégions in my country). It makes more sense as people naturally link themselves to these regions much more than they would relate themselves to ecoregions. My memories from the USA are crossing hundred of miles of somehow identical landscape, with same type of soil, same climate, same vegetation and animal. That makes sense to englobe this in one unique ecoregion. Only in my department, landscape, soil types, climate are so diverse that fauna and flora can change dramatically in 50 km. Agriculture types are entirely different, switching from intensive corn cropping, to very extensive cattle raising or only wood use. Pressure on these different places is totally different and is managed differently.


 * I saw in the CBD both words ecoregion/bioregion have been used, and were given the exact same definition in the glossary. Dunno is bioregion is bigger or smaller than ecoregion then. If it's smaller, that might be the right word for regions naturelles. If it's bigger, what is it ? And question is : should the word used by cbd or the word used by those in the field prevail :-)


 * I read Canada was divided in ecozones (15), then écoprovinces, then écorégions, then écodistricts. That's interesting. I wonder if our régions naturelles might not be canadien écodistricts. -- 9 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.13.220.198 (talk • contribs).

An ecoregion is defined not only on its flora and fauna, but also on the unique character of its morphology, geology, pedology, hydric ressources and climate. All these need to be defined properly, and included in any ecoregion description -- 8 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.13.220.60 (talk • contribs).
 * Absolutely true, but let's understand how the concept is understood in the different languages and cultures first. The 8zone/867region map of the world only emerged last year, so there are obviously going to be some terminology differences.  But let's sort them out, so that we can start setting standards for translation and cooperation. -- 8 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.40 (talk • contribs).
 * It might be interesting also to add the name of "political" nations included in an ecoregion, as 1) it will be clearer to people and 2) it will make obvious several nations share an ecoregion, and might take care of it together instead of separatly -- 9 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.13.220.198 (talk • contribs).

Sample WikiProject

 * Tokerboy

Ecozone tables
Each ecozone now includes a table that lists all of the ecozone's constituent ecoregions, sorted by biome. Most, but not all, of the tables list the country or countries that cover that ecoregion's territory. Thanks to the folks who helped put them together.

Another project would be to add a section to each country's main article that lists the ecoregions that that country's territory covers. I have added an ecology section to the main articles for Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea, with links to the articles for each ecoregion.

It seems that each ecoregion should have its own article; the only exception I can see is for islands or island groups that form their own ecoregion. I combined the ecoregion articles with the main articles for Desventuradas Islands, Juan Fernandez Islands, Revillagigedo Islands, and Lord Howe Island. I gave Solomon Islands rain forests its own article, because not all the islands in the ecoregion are in the country, and not all of the islands in the country are in the ecoregion. Same for Vanuatu; the Vanuatu rain forests ecoregion includes the Santa Cruz Islands, which are politically part of the Solomon Islands.

The other islands or island groups that are their own single ecoregions are Andaman Islands/Andaman Islands rain forests, Nicobar Islands/Nicobar Islands rain forests, Clipperton Island/Clipperton Island shrub and grasslands, Norfolk Island/Norfolk Island subtropical forest Louisiade Archipelago/Louisiade Archipelago rain forests, Admiralty Islands/Admiralty Islands lowland rain forests, Trobriand Islands/Trobriand Islands rain forests, Stewart Island/Rakiura Island temperate forests; there are doubtless others.

Some, but not all, of the articles on Biomes include tables that list all of the ecoregions of that biome type, sorted by ecozone.Tom Radulovich 04:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Categorization
Any thoughts on using categories for the ecozones and ecoregions? Categories could maybe be made after the tables on the ecozone pages? And maybe species could be added to categories for ecozones or ecoregions which they inhabit? Fuelbottle | Talk 10:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I've started building some wikipedia-aware database tools that use Orography to classify everything from Mountain peaks to Oceanic rifts in a sortof Z_transform model. It adds another dimension, especially when organizing watersheds, River basins, streams and creek bottoms Quinobi 07:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as a categorization scheme for ecoregions goes, let me suggest that the top-level category would be "Ecoregions", as at present. Top-level subcategories would be "Category: terrestrial ecoregions", "Category: freshwater ecoregions", and Category: marine ecoregions", as well as ecoregions in a given country, i.e. "Ecoregions of India". Country categories could include both freshwater and marine ecoregions in addition to terrestrial ones. Below these top-level subcategories would be categories for biomes and for ecozones. Thus the article South Western Ghats moist deciduous forests would be in "Category: Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests", "Category: Indomalaya", and "Category: Ecoregions of India". Tom Radulovich 28 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)

Tables
Renders this:

and Renders this:

Wikiportal:Terra
Maybe we should build a Wikiportal to organize all of this, eh? Quinobi 20:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formatting, layout, etc.
I just stumbled across Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forests while random-paging and did some work on it before realizing it was part of a WikiProject. There were a couple of things that I did and planned to do:
 * There seemed to be no good reason why the lists of ecoregions should be in a table like that, they're just a bunch of sequential lists. I changed the table headers into conventional section headers.
 * The list of terrestrial biomes and ecozones at the end should probably be one of those templated footer boxes.
 * Every Title is Capitalized Inappropriately. These articles should all be moved over to titles conforming to Wikipedia capitalization standards.
 * External links should be aggregated in a proper external links section.

If nobody objects, I'll put it on my to-do list to go through these articles in a few days' time to make all those changes. However I kinda suspect that someone's going to object, hence my comment here to open discussion. :) Bryan 04:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well. Not that I fully object, but you should know that it is also a wikipedia wide project, so any major change made here increase difficulty for cross language update.
 * As for template, please consult w:fr:Écozone néarctique: plantes à graines par nom scientifique and néarctique. If you could stick to something similar, that will greatly help us.
 * If you change capitalization, please also update the interwikis


 * thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing 05:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Will do. That template looks like what I had in mind anyway. :) Bryan 05:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zoogeography?
Hello folks!! The viewpoint (not POV) of this wikiproject is imho too biased towards conservation. See also my post on Talk:Ecozone. I must admit I'm only just now beginning to delve in this project, but a first look at zoogeography opened my eyes... Also, the boundaries of "ecozones" (not based on Ecology but on Systematics and vicariance) are different for plants and animals (not everywhere, but certainly in Wallacea). There are also differences between birds and mammals (although the divisions try to encompass both). Also, my university knowledge is eroding fast and I don't have any books in handy, so I may be wrong on some points. Phlebas 20:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * The WWF ecozones and ecoregions are a composite of zoogeography and phytogeography. Australasia ecozone is perhaps the most complex; it has several distinct faunal regions &mdash; Meganesia (Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania), New Caledonia, New Zealand, Wallacea, and the East Melanesian Islands. Some of which (Meganesia, New Zealand, and New Caledonia) are long-separated fragments of Gondwana, while Wallacea and East Melanesia were formed by more recent crustal folding and young volcanism. Botanically, Wallacea and New Guinea are similar enough to Sundaland and the Philippines that botanists call the whole region straddling the Wallace Line "Malesia". So New Guinea, for example, has a largely Asian-derived flora and a largely Australian-derived fauna. These subregions are explained pretty well in the article on the subject. As far as other biogeographic classification schemes, such as mammalian faunal regions or Important bird areas, they invite articles such as that on floristic provinces that cross-reference with the ecoregion and ecozone articles. Tom Radulovich 29 June 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of the Alps
This category has been listed for deletion, but its also made clear that there is no clear system or precedent for categories on regional ecology. Since this wikiproject seems to be the most relevant, I encourage the participants to provide some input at CfD. siafu 22:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)