Talk:Ecozone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is an ecozone/ecoregion similar to a biome? Is there a case for merging or cross linking these artiles? quercus robur 10:57 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact the term 'ecozone' is the official term for a large scale biome, and the term 'ecoregion' for a smaller one, but I am not sure if the term 'biome' is in use any more, since these terms are rather better defined...
- For now, cross link like crazy, and use the Ecozone/Ecoregion articles NOT to define 'what they are' but to list 'the ones there are actually on Earth'.
- Another way to say it - a biome is a theoretical thing that we use to find real ecozones and real ecoregions - and potentially we can make artificial biomes... ?
The article says there are eight, but lists only seven. One is missing. Which?
I've noticed that the usage of the words ecozone and ecoregion differ, sometimes ecozone refers to larger areas and sometimes to the smaller ones. The way I have learned it in university, the main biogeographical regions are defined little differetly in zoology and botany, and the usage of only one set for both is not very practical. The way they're now defined here in Wikipedia is not very good, but I'm reluctant to rewrite it because things may be defined differently in other countries. Anyway, the biome refers to certain types of ecosystems, like deserts, savannah, steppes, etc. and it's a different thing than ecoregions/ecozones, which refer to actual areas on Earth. ---Timo Honkasalo
I agree. Biome and ecozone do not have the same reference frame at all. The word ecozone appear to be very little used in some countries. However, from what I saw both from the last IUCN and WWF classification systems, the ecozone was first defined from the Udvardo biogeographic realms system, and these are used in other countries.
Note: 'ecoregion' article defines what one is - they are too small to create a map that shows them all effectively - while this article can do so easily with the larger ecozones.
Contents |
[edit] realms?
How established is it really that what once were called 'biogeographical realms' are now to be called 'ecozones'? Is the latter really the predominant and preferred designation or only so for ecologists? 80.167.76.252 14:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that first the article says this "According to Schultz (1988, 2000, 2002 and 2005) nine ecozones can be defined" then later talks about 8 regions and in the picture beside it, it shows 6 of the 8 ecozones.
What???? Lsjzl 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] emphasis
(See also previous post) The emphasis is stressed too much on conservation ecology than on zoogeography. I would even say that the concepts presented by the separations in Holarctic etc. are only interesting when dealing with vicariance, dispersion, and island biogeography (and other related concepts). Biomes are much more applicative and useful to conservation ecology. Well, that's how I learned it... Phlebas 20:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merger
I'm suggesting that Biogeographic Region be merged into this article. Perhaps a section can be added that expands on the terminological debate and adapts the plotted historical development listed in the other article. Overall, however, I don't understand why these are two separate articles; they seem to overlap considerably. If someone can clarify it for me, it would be appreciated; otherwise, I'd appreciate it if someone more skilled with Wiki than I could facilitate the merger. 207.233.110.65 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confused
Looking at this article I cannot make heads or tails of this. Somebody divided up the world into something dubbed "ecoregions", but it is unclear why. What is the point in having this entry at all? Brya 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
I just attempted a major cleanup of the article, to address the comments above:
- tried to improve the overall organization, structure, and tone of the article.
- tried to explain the important distinction between an ecozone as described here, which reflects evolutionary history, and a biome, which reflects life-form and vegetation type regardless of evolutionary history.
- removed the J. Schultz system from this article; although he uses the term "ecozone", it is really a system of biomes, as they are generally defined in Wikipedia.
- tried to clarify the historical development of different classification schemes for plants, animals, and both plants and animals, and present them chronologically.
- added the WWF bioregions.
- Added references.
Tom Radulovich 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ecozones; Biogeographical kingdoms, regions and provinces, biocorology and biocenology
As several people have pointed, the point of view supported in this article and related ones is mainly usefull just from an ecological angle of view or, saying it in other words, it is mainly biocenological (ecological biogeography), wich is not bad at all, but it probably lacks a better biocorological vission (I mean estrictly zoogeographical and fitogeographical taxonomic and historical point of view). This article and its related group needs an update as to adopt the hierarchical structure being developed by the most modern authors like J.J. Morrone which takes into account not only the differences but also the historical conexions amongst biogeographical areas as to classify and group them into large biogeographical kingdoms (Holarctic, Holotropical and Holantactic), each one containing several biogeographical regions, each one divided in sub-regions, those into provinces and them finally into districts. This hierarchical system have been developed on a historic geological and systematic-evolutive basis, giving to the biogeographical areas a more natural system of classification.Bolosphex (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
