Ecoregion: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An '''ecoregion''' is defined as being a cartographical delineation of distinct [[ecology|ecological]] areas, land or water, identified by its [[geology]], [[topography]], [[soil]]s, [[vegetation]], [[climate]] conditions, a distinct assemblage of natural communities and [[species]], [[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]], [[w:topography]], [[w:soil]]s, [[w:vegetation]], [[w:climate]] conditions, a distinct assemblage of natural communities and [[w:species]], [[w: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 focuse too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.<br>'' | //''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 focuse too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.<br>'' | ||
Revision as of 03:50, 1 May 2003
An ecoregion is defined as being a cartographical delineation of distinct ecological areas, land or water, identified by its w:geology, w:topography, w:soils, w:vegetation, w:climate conditions, a distinct assemblage of natural communities and w:species, w: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 focuse too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.
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 adressed very well.//
World Wildlife Fund ecologists currently divide the land surface of the Earth into 8 major w:ecozones 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.