Talk:Tundra

From Academic Kids

...Is tundra humid? Amount of precipitation is very low in tundra, which is about 12cm/year of snow. I don't understand how it is called 'humid biome'.

Because the temperatures are so low, evaporation is very limited. So although precipitation is low, there is almost always an excess of precipitation over evaporation. Almost all tundra environments are very wet underfoot. The exception is a few areas of alpine desert tundra in the Atacama Desert. - MPF 15:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wolf and Wolverine removed, as they are more widespread than just tundra; Wolverines are mainly in the taiga, not tundra. - MPF 15:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that. -- hike395 17:57, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that the table of tundra ecoregions is too long for this article (even after I compacted it). I suggest that we move it to List of tundra ecoregions, and then make a link. -- hike395 04:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Why shrink the size of the photo? The larger thumbnail is more visible. -- hike395 15:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origin of word "Tundra"

Origin of word "Tundra" is in sami language, through russian, accordingly Finnish language board [1] (http://www.kotus.fi/julkaisut/ikkunat/1999/kielii1999_19.shtml). --Mikko Paananen 22:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, Finnish speakers might recognise tanner "(firm, solid) ground" and tunturi "fjeld" to be the same word. It's ironic that the permafrost tundra the word "tundra" usually refers to isn't found where the Sami live (in North Scandinavia). For "actual" tundra with permafrost and all, you have to go east of that. -- Vuo 02:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tundra list of ecoregions: in or out of this article?

Should the list of ecoregions be part of this article, or in its own article?

I didn't delete the ecoregion list (an anonymous user did), but then I realized that the long list of ecoregions did not add substantially to the article, especially considering a large majority of the links were red. This article is the only article where the WWF term for a biome ("Tundra") is a generic term.

In general, Wikipedia usage is to discourage long lists within articles. See Wikipedia:List, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists).

Therefore, I prefer the list of tundra ecoregions being in their own article. -- hike395 06:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree that text is preferable to lists in articles; in editing the other biome articles, I tried to get rid of short bulleted lists in favor of text (this article still has a few; "Notable animals in the arctic tundra include", "Notable animals in the alpine tundra include", etc). But as Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists) says, "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles"; all of the biome and ecozone articles include lists of ecoregions (and this list is one of the shorter ones); most of the articles in WikiProject Tree of Life include lists of species as well. A list of ecoregions at the end of this article makes it consistent with the other biome articles, adds substantively to the article, and doesn't make the article over-long. Tom Radulovich 07:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of consistancy with other articles on the topic, I would prefer that the list stays here. I do not think the fact many of the links are red is a good argument. Opening to other topics yet to be written is one of the way wikipedia naturally grows. User:Anthere

Another idea: must we have ecoregion articles have the exact WWF name? Or can we wikify the name to disambiguate it? In other words, would people be happy moving List of tundra ecoregions to something like Tundra (WWF ecoregions), to distinguish it from the generic Tundra article? With an disambiguation notice at the top of both. That way, the Tundra WWF ecoregion article can be completely consistent with the rest of the topic.

By the way, Anthere, what ever happened with the WWF anyway? Years ago, you stopped working on the WWF ecoregion articles, because you weren't sure about the licensing (WWF didn't respond, I seem to remember). Is all of this stuff OK to put into Wikipedia? -- hike395 14:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I did not stop years ago :-) I stopped (only) nearly one year ago, when I just quit having enough time to edit really. However, I still go edit the ecoregions on the french wikipedia from time to time. Not much though :-( I actually miss editing... Last year, I sent a grant request to National Geographic on the matter... they did not even answered ([2] (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Anthere/NGF_grant)). Hmmm, and then I was overwhelmed by life :-) But it is not a lost story for me. As soon as I have more time again, I'll go back to it. I made recently some contacts in the green party in France, then I went to the TIC21 meeting in France in january (new technologies and sustainable development), who invited me to talk next year to present wikipedia. It is my intent to present then the ecoregions project. This will be a good place for this. If I am no more on the board next year, it will be on my list; if not, it will wait a little bit more... I am patient :-)

As for the "names", I thought about it carefully... I do not think a "name" is problematic... However, I noticed that the WWF removed their map and this is unfortunate. I hesitate, renaming would sometimes help. On the other hand, it helps to have same naming scheme between basically the two sites taking care of the matter.

It is unfortunate to have so little time. I brought many great pictures from my last trip to Algeria and hardly had time to insert them and edit many articles; I only did a half dozen in french on the matter. Tomorrow, I am leaving for Marroco, I hope to bring back a bunch of nice pictures :-) Anthere 21:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that has bothered me for a while is that the common definition of Tundra maps into two of the WWF biomes, Tundra and Montane grasslands and shrublands. That's been part of my motivation to split the article, because they don't map to the same concept. -- hike395 14:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

True. I similarly met the problem with Antartica. Anthere 21:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that alpine tundra as it is defined in this article is equivalent to the WWF's montane grasslands and shrublands. A number of ecoregions have vertical zonation that includes montane, subalpine, and alpine zones. Pockets of alpine tundra in these ecoregions are generally small, and the WWF convention is to include these alpine zones with the montane ecosystems below. A number of the montane grasslands and shrublands ecoregions do include pockets of alpine vegetation surrounded at lower elevations by montane zones, but so do a number of Temperate coniferous forests ecoregions, notably the Sierra Nevada forests (http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na0527_full.html) and the Alps conifer and mixed forests (http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/pa/pa0501_full.html). Including some text in the Alpine tundra section along the lines of "a number of montane ecoregions include pockets of alpine tundra at the highest elevations" reconciles the WWF system of biomes with the definition of tundra used here. Tom Radulovich 02:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that not all Montane grasslands and shrublands map to alpine tundra reinforces my point: the generic idea of Tundra is different concept from the WWF Tundra biome. They just aren't the same, they don't map one-to-one.

What Anthere did at Antarctic ecozone is the perfect precedent for this situation. She didn't add the ecoregion list to the Antartica article, but instead made a separate article to disambiguate. Can we move List of tundra ecoregions to Tundra biome or Tundra WWF biome, and keep that as a separate article? We can then cross-link between Tundra and that other article, and cross-link between Tundra and Montane grasslands and shrublands, and cross link between Montane grasslands and shrublands and subalpine (if it exists). -- hike395 02:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. To do as you suggest, and move the WWF list of ecoregions to "Tundra biome", suggests that Tundra as presented here is not a biome type, although it is. "Tundra WWF biome" is ungainly, and implies that the WWF definition of tundra differs substantively from this one, which it does not. The WWF definition of tundra is essentially the same as that presented here, and that all tundra ecoregions listed in the article are indeed tundra. The only difference, which isn't much of a difference at all, is that some of WWF's montane ecoregions include areas of alpine tundra habitat as well. Remember that the ecoregions are meant to be large enough to serve as viable conservation units, which means that they may contain more than one habitat type. A number of the WWF ecoregions include multiple habitat types, but are classified according to the predominant type. It doesn't mean that WWF defines tundra differently. Take WWF's South Western Ghats montane rain forests; the biome is predominantly wet tropical forest, but also includes enclaves of shola-montane grassland (not tundra) mosaic at higher elevations. But that doesn't mean that WWF disagrees that the montane grassland in this ecoregion is in fact montane grassland; it simply means that the ecoregion includes small areas of differing habitat types in addition to the predominant one. My own ecoregion, California chaparral and woodlands, has quite a complex mosaic of habitats within it (grassland, shrubland, woodland, savanna, coniferous forest, etc). but is delineated as a single ecoregion. Tom Radulovich 03:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because all WWF tundra ecoregions are tundra doesn't make them have the same definition. This article defines tundra as alpine tundra, arctic tundra, and antarctic tundra. WWF tundra comprises arctic tundra and antarctic tundra, but excludes alpine tundra. The WWF placed alpine tundra into Montane grasslands and shrublands. A + B + C is not the same as A + B, with C placed somewhere else.

For more than a year now, I've been unhappy using WWF's definition of ecoregions as the definitive one for Wikipedia. This business of alpine tundra not being tundra has been bothering me. Enshrining the WWF definitions as the only Wikipedia ecoregions also disturbs me: what about Bailey's ecoregions (for the world, at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/cdroms/ged_iib/datasets/b03/bec.htm; for the US at http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ecoreg1_home.html)? I believe that the exclusive unlabeled use of WWF ecoregions for Wikipedia is actually POV. To make it NPOV, I would label them explicitly as coming from the WWF. Just like we label Koppen climate classification as coming from Koppen explicitly in the title: Koppen is one common climate classification system, not the only one.

I'm all in favor of keeping the WWF classification in Wikipedia. Let's just keep it clearly and cleanly labeled.

Tom: if you don't want to label the WWF classification system explicitly (say, with Tundra WWF biome or something like that), what compromise would you suggest? There is probably a common ground here. Please don't just reject my concerns: how would you address them in a way that would be acceptable to both of us? -- hike395 06:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your concerns. If we agree that the WWF tundra ecoregions are indeed tundra ecoregions, we could add a disclaimer below the "Tundra ecoregions" heading saying that "the following tundra ecoregions have been delineated by the WWF", and could discuss and/or list other ecoregion delineations (Bailey, Udvardy) as well. I don't think the WWF scheme is perfect, but I think the idea of using it as the primary means of organizing these ecoregion articles while making reference to other delinations is basically sound. Check out Ecoregions of Australia or as one attempt to present two different ecoregion delineations and cross-reference them; the articles about biodiversity hotspots which include multiple WWF regions (Wallacea, Sundaland, East Melanesian Islands) simply cross-reference the WWF scheme. I also work on articles on plant classification, where there is general consensus that we use the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's classification scheme to organize the articles while cross-referencing other important schemes, including Cronquist. Seeking a consistent classification scheme across a set of related articles isn't necessarily POV pushing, so long as others are represented as well, and of course nothing prevents one from writing ecoregion articles that don't follow the WWF scheme, or articles about distinct habitat types (i.e. shola) that the WWF includes within a larger ecoregion.

That leaves the question of alpine tundra. I still disagree that WWF's montane grasslands and shrublands is synonymous with alpine tundra. Most of these ecoregions have substantial areas below the tree-line. WWF makes the distinction between montane and alpine habitats, but generally includes the alpine habitats with the montane system below. As I mentioned before, the WWF system includes the alpine habitats of the Sierra Nevada, Pyrenees, and Alps within the surrounding Temperate coniferous forests ecoregions. These ecoregions could be referenced in this article if you like, by saying that "The WWF ecoregions generally include areas of alpine tundra habitat within montane forest or grassland ecoregions; the following ecoregions contain areas of alpine tundra habitat" and then listing them. Tom Radulovich 14:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay: I thought about it, and came up with a possible compromise. I realized what was bothering me: the hierarchy of article did not match the WWF hierarchy and they were presented each in their own monolithic block. The two blocks were inconsistent. I think it is much better if we split up the WWF ecoregions into the existing article hierarchy. Arctic tundra section includes the WWF arctic tundra ecoregions. Antarctic tundra section includes the WWF antarctic tundra ecoregions. Alpine tundra section just points to Montane grasslands and shrublands.

Is this OK with you, Tom? -- hike395 03:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)