Talk:Ecoregion conservation status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I put back the links to make the redirects.These are necessary for the ecoregion project. Anthere

No problem. But then I think you should create less ambiguous titles, like "endangered ecoregion", etc. "vulnerable", in particular, is vulnerable to ambiguity... FVDP.

this is not refering to an endangered ecoregion, but to species endangered, which are to be found in an ecoregion.

perhaps, we could rename them vulnerable species ? what do you think ?

Really, when I re-read your article: Ecoregions vary in their biological particularities, as well as in their conservation status. This latter represent an estimation of the current and future ability of the ecoregion to sustain ecological viability and to react to environmental changes. it seems to talk about the region, which I may then interpret as "the current ecosystem in that region and the species that constitute it". Whereas a "vulnerable species" can live in several distinct regions. It really depends on what you want to tell. --FvdP 19:59 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"region" is administrative, ecoregion is ecological. Look at the ones below

Image:Ecoregions.jpg

the one on the left was defined by national geographic, the one on the right represent the "régions biogéographiques" as defined in "Directive Habitat" from the EU (which is why Switzerland is in grey).

The species status is defined by the IUCN (look at fr:Liste Rouge de l'IUCN et fr:Espèce menacée. The IUCN propose lists of all species included in these categories. Look at http://www.redlist.org/

So, what I want to do, is perhaps one day (if I find time :-)) first to define clearly each of these categories, second to provide the update list of all species in each of these categories (well, at least the most important ones), then for each ecoregion to indicate the general status of the area, which perhaps means the relative proportion (or number) of threatened species. With a list of some of the threatened species for each ecoregion. Well, at least, I will try to take care of the ones covered by France (and Belgium :-)). I have not decided yet how to fit la Directive Habitat with the other one.

So, I think vulnerable species is the right title. That is perhaps the status as it is defined in the ecoregion that needs to be reworked. Bah, do as you want; As soon as I have time, I will try to come back to that topic and fix this. Right now, it does not harm anything anyway. :-)))

Hum, Bruxelles, c est dans le bleu ou dans le vert ???

User:anthere

A vue de nez, c'est dans le bleu (ou le vert pomme, selon la carte). Bruxelles est un peu plus au nord que le milieu de la Belgique (normal, c'est en Flandres ;-)

de mes souvenirs (j'ai habité à Antwerpen il y a qlq années), le pays était plutot plat. Meme type climatique. Je ne sais pas ce qui défini le passage de l un a l autre dans ce cas...Note que j habite aussi a la limite bleu vert.

So, all these mountainous violet zones (on the right-hand map) define a unique ecoregion ?

Zone biogeographique is the terminology used by Directive Habitat. Note that the DH areas are larger and more rough than the ones of NG. They are meant to be usable. But since noone has the unique definition of what an ecoregion is (on the contrary of ecozone pretty well defined) I guess you can say the zones biogeographiques are ecoregions also. So, yes, the violet area is an area considered quite coherent in terms of climate, soil and life.

About the other problems, I'll leave it up to you as you are the one who is doing the hard work. Most of my wikipedia interventions are of the "inspection des travaux finis" kind ;-) + :-(. As you say, there's currently no harm.

--FvdP 00:06 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

the least I can say is that it is not a "done" project. Hardly starting :-) and :-( But you are more than welcome to provide a pure and innocent eye on it. ant