Talk:Biomes and ecosystems

Why did you remove a listing you just added?

@Vidimian: It's not very important, but I'm just curious why you removed the King's Canyon/Sequoia National Park listing after you added it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably because it's a duplicate; see that section. ARR8 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point. It's because I searched for "king" and didn't find anything; it's only listed as Sequoia. I will change accordingly. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

To the north

SelfieCity wrote: "Andes Mountain Range is a counterexample" about high deserts often being farther north than ordinary deserts. I think the parenthesis is misleading. The point is hardly that they are more to the north, but that they usually are farther from the equator. The Andes are not that far (their northern part, that is), but I am not sure what the sentence is trying to say, in relation to the Andes. --LPfi (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I’d rewrite the sentence if you have an alternative wording that you think is better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose "farther north" should read "at higher latitude", but I do not know what parts of the Andes are regarded high level desert, so if that is still a counterexample the parenthesis should stay, unless you want to clarify. --LPfi (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a large plateau region of the Andes in primarily Peru and Bolivia, where Lake Titicaca is located. This region is around the equator but receives cool temperatures and a dry climate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Titicaca is at some 15° S, the northernmost corner of Bolivia at some 10° S, so I'd say the north/latitude confusion is relevant. It is still close to the equator compared to Sahara & al, so yes, it is a counterexample. Is there some reason why high elevation deserts in general are farther from the equator, or is it just that there happens to be few high elevation places at low latitude? --LPfi (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s coincidence. Most equatorial regions are low-lying tropical rainforests. Landmasses in the the Americas and Eurasia both become broad north of the equator, and it’s typically large landmasses that have high plateau regions in the interior that are home to deserts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

the Amazon rainforest is a "byproduct" of the moisture retention caused by the Andes and Roraima mountain chains. I don't know if it's relevant to a travel guide, but it's the facts. Ibaman (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be included in tropical rainforests and high-elevation deserts. Would you like to include that information? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• well, IMHO it's not a little obvious, but again, I'm a Brazilian biologist, with the according bias. Ibaman (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it will come across as obvious to those who are not familiar with South America. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Arctic

The article now states:

"Permanently covered in snow and ice, there's zero vegetation in the Arctic and Antarctic, and only a few animals. Human habitation is limited to research stations, where crew and supplies are flown in and out. Temperatures rarely if ever raise above freezing".

Our article Arctic defines the Arctic as the area north of the Arctic Circle or "northern areas normally colder than 10°C (50°F), year-round". Those definitions include much of the tundra, and even Svalbard has vegetation and temperatures above freezing (July average 6.1°C). Kaktovik at the Beaufort Sea coast in Arctic Alaska has a July average of 8°C according to Wikipedia. There is a lot of ground here not permanently covered in snow and ice.

If we use some other definition on the Arctic, we should make that definition explicit.

--LPfi (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps “almost no vegetation” would be better? Human habitation is also found within a few small settlements such as Longyearbyen. My analysis of weather data this summer revealed that the Nunavut mainland had temperate summer temperatures this summer.

The problem is the definition of “Arctic” depends. Perhaps we could clarify “ice cap”? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If we mean the ice cap, let's say so. For "the Arctic", I think we should use either of the definitions in Arctic, which are clear (although the border may change with the global climate as you noticed) – or avoid using that term. --LPfi (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, an ice cap will always have a complete lack of flora regardless of its size. The paragraph you’ve mentioned seems to better match the description of “ice cap” than “Arctic,” a term which is largely ambiguous due to the “Arctic Circle,” which is unrelated to climate, and the so-called “Subantarctic” - which is the tundra and not the Arctic. I would avoid using “Arctic” unless we are referring specifically to the region inside the “Arctic Circle.”

But to clarify on the irrelevance of the Arctic Circle, Inukjuak has a Tundra-like climate despite being far south of the Arctic Circle, while as you probably know Tromso has a relatively mild climate despite being around 70 degrees north and therefore well north of the Arctic Circle. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The wording in the Tundra section seems good. But I am not sure the ice cap lacks any vegetation. I don't remember what life forms have been found far inland in Antarctica, but there is indeed some kind of life. I'd suppose the glaciers of Greenland and Svalbard might have quite some more (not necessarily plants, but still). The "subarctic" seems to more or less coincide with the taiga, i.e. home to me. And yes, I've been more than once to the Barents Sea coast, but seen little real tundra (in contrast to "tundra like" scenery), and know 70°N in America is different. We could talk about "Arctic climate", but unless there is a need for it, we could avoid it for clarity. --LPfi (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The definitions certainly get complicated, and as your comment implies, even the definition of "subarctic" depends on perspective/location/naming conventions, but you're right per Koppen classification. I'm not aware of plant life on ice caps, since plants typically need soil to survive, but definitely animals can survive on the ice cap, and who knows what creatures live underneath the ice-cap in Antarctica? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Antarctica does have some areas that are not covered by ice, and some plants grow there. There's even an w:Antarctic flora article that mentions this:

Antarctica's extant flora presently consists of around 250 lichens, 100 mosses, 25-30 liverworts, and around 700 terrestrial and aquatic algal species. Two flowering plants, Deschampsia antarctica (Antarctic hair grass) and Colobanthus quitensis (Antarctic pearlwort), are found on the northern and western parts of the Antarctic Peninsula. Species of moss endemic to Antarctica include Grimmia antarctici, Schistidium antarctici, and Sarconeurum glaciale Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. That’s why the term “ice cap” should be used. The McMurdo Dry Valleys region is mostly ice-free. The flora exists on a few small island/coastal areas on the Peninsula, but I would expect that concerns following the “warm” (record breaking) 2019/20 summer will arise regarding the spread of the flora if the next summer is similarly warm. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the life in the ice cap itself is bacteria or algae, but some kind of life has been found also there. Elsewhere, where temperatures are not that extreme and there is soil nearby (which can be transported by wind), such as on Svalbard, I suppose there can be even quite normal life, although on a very modest scale. --LPfi (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• South pole geographic el station.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Reason for the nomination: Not own work. Permission/Source needed. This seems to be a case of a user that has uploaded a whole bunch of obviously lifted stuff like logos of companies and therefore can't be trusted. Shall we delete? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. There must be other pictures of this pole. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Even we can't have that file unless there's a source. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

We're all in agreement. I will go ahead and delete the thumbnail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)