Ecoregion: Difference between revisions
got rid of unreadable italics, suggest how to do this
No edit summary |
(got rid of unreadable italics, suggest how to do this) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An '''ecoregion''' is defined as being a cartographical delineation of distinct [[w:ecology|ecological]] areas, land or water, identified by its [[w:geology|geology]], [[w:topography|topography]], [[w:soil|soil]]s, [[w:vegetation|vegetation]], [[w:climate|climate]] conditions, a distinct assemblage of natural communities and [[w:species|species]], [[w:water|water]] resources, as well as anthropic factors. | An '''ecoregion''' is defined as being a cartographical delineation of distinct [[w:ecology|ecological]] areas, land or water, identified by its [[w:geology|geology]], [[w:topography|topography]], [[w:soil|soil]]s, [[w:vegetation|vegetation]], [[w:climate|climate]] conditions, a distinct assemblage of natural communities and [[w:species|species]], [[w:water|water]] resources, as well as anthropic factors. | ||
:I have a problem with the definition given by WWF, as it add to this one "with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change". I think this approach tends to consider that these areas were static (which is only true on a very small time scale) and the preanthropic areas were the "right" ones (when thinking in terms of biodiversity conservation). Besides, on some continents, it is likely major land-use change occured quite a long time ago. I think they focus too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.<br> | |||
:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well. | |||
::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way. | |||
World Wildlife Fund ecologists currently divide the land surface of the Earth into 8 major [[w:ecozone|ecozone]]s containing 867 smaller terrestrial ecoregions. The ecozones are very well-defined, following major continental boundaries, while the ecoregions are subject to more change and controversy. | World Wildlife Fund ecologists currently divide the land surface of the Earth into 8 major [[w:ecozone|ecozone]]s containing 867 smaller terrestrial ecoregions. The ecozones are very well-defined, following major continental boundaries, while the ecoregions are subject to more change and controversy. | ||
Some propose the ecoregions as stable borders for [[w:bioregional democracy]] initiatives. | Some propose the ecoregions as stable borders for [[w:bioregional democracy]] initiatives. | ||