h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Biomes of Earth - A794072
Author: Intersturber - U199002

This is an informative entry (like the rest are!) on the different biomes of earth. Just get the criticizing over with so I can go on to have a wonderful day shaving my weasel.
Have a furry day!

not too bad, but with that title nobody will find it.

although biome is the right technical term, it does seem to be used interchangably (at this level) with the term habitat.

it might be an idea to change the terminology to reflect this, as at the level you are aiming at, most people already know habitat, but don't know biome.

other than that, I have no major criticisms at this time, but I have not had time to look at it in detail.

I will get back to you when I have looked at it closer.

Thanks-- What title would be more "findable"- something like, Habitats of the Earth, or maybe- Climate Zones of Our Planet?? I'm not sure.... I realized that not many people would recognize the word Biome, but I was hoping that would spark interest, but you're probably right. I'll try to think of something more catchy...

Hi, Intersturber!

I think it would be a very bad idea to change the title to 'habitats'. The two words should *not* be used interchangeably! Biomes are defined to cover very large areas, where the climate is the main factor controlling what grows; habitats are usually defined to cover smaller areas, and other factors apart from climate may be what differentiates them. For example, Ireland is in the Temperate Deciduous Forest biome, but I can think of probably 20 different habitats here, all with only small climatic variations.

I think you should definitely split up your section on grasslands. Temperate grasslands (as in the American West) and the Savannas in Africa shouldn't be counted as the same biome, as the climatic conditions are quite different. Are you sure about grassland covering the largest area? I had the vague impression that northern coniferous forest actually covers a greater area.


Azara

Alright, I'll change it for the benefit of those who don't know what a biome is....
My biology book when I was in biology said that grasslands are the biggest, and it was only a few years old, so I don't think they shrunk dramatically since them, but I could be wrong!

I'll agree with Azara about grasslands. I thought, however, that deserts can be cold as well as hot and that some are stony! That was what I was taught in geography, I think. I could be wrong though!

Hmm, which is the 'biggest' presumably depends on wher you draw the dividing lines: if you lump prairies and savannas together as 'grassland' then maybe they cover more area than taiga. If you count them as two separate biomes (which I think you should) then the taiga may cover more area than either alone.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss5/biome/forests.html
refers to taiga as the largest terrestrial biome, but it uses a greater number of divisions than you do.


Azara

Well, I just thought, since everyone thinks that I should change the title to bring it down a level so that more people will understand it, why should I up everything else a level, so that more people will be confused?

Hmm, 'everyone else'??

I thought it was only one person who suggested you drop the 'biome' part of the title. I still think that if you are going to separate the three main types of forest, you should also separate the main types of grassland.

Azara

Interesting entry - I'll *try* to take a look at it in more detail if I get a chance - for now I'm just bookmarking it.

Woodpigeon

Hi Interstuber,

I think this is a great subject for the edited guide, and I have made a few comments here - please don't see it as too much a criticism, and please feel free to take or leave my comments. Some small changes might help to accelerate this article into the Edited guide.

A few small points about your introduction. It might be better to start with the definition sentence "A biome is...", and to drop the first sentence. You might also put the number of biomes (6) later in the paragraph. Also, you have a big contradiction in the comments "the area doesn't change rapidly all the time" and "Some biomes are growing, whereas some are shrinking at alarming rates." What is a climax community, by the way? Maybe it needs to be explained in a footnote.

In the Deserts section, you say "Deserts have the least biodiversity, which basically means that there is just no variety in creepy crawly things there" - but surely there is lots of variation - scorpions, lizards, cactii, desert rats etc? A lack of biodiverity means that the number of different species is small compared to elsewhere.

"usually isn't much cloud cover to hold in the heat or cold" - you should possibly drop the "or cold" bit and replace by "built up during the day".

"It is hot, has hardly any if not no water". Consider rephrasing to "has hardly any water"

I am not sure if the comments about "happy sounding places" really fits well. Would you consider removing them?

"that gooey stuff that gets stuck in the roads in the winter" - I am not sure if that is required either. It could be oil, mud, blood from roadkill etc. Consider dropping it altogether.

Would you consider listing some of the more well known deserts as further examples? Sahara, Gobi, Kalahari, Arabian, etc.?

In the Tropical Rainforests section again you mention biodiversity, but give it an incorrect meaning. It should mean that lots and lots and lots of different animal and plant species co-exist together, many of which are non-poisonous.

"to get bit or stung or whatever". Consider dropping the "or whatever" and change to "get bitten or stung". I am also not sure that if you were infected by a poisonous organism, that you would necessarily be glad to know that something even more poisonous lurked elsewhere in the forest.

I thought that the major source of oxygen were the oceans. Can you check?

"Of course, there are many many many many many many more plants, but that would be a boring and endless entry just writing all the plants that live in the rainforests. " Indeed it would. I don't think you need to mention this though. The examples you give paint a good picture. Ditto with "Once again, there are many many more that live there, probably many of which are poisonous.".

Again, consider mentioning the locations of some of the major rainforests on the planet.

I like your piece on the "Temperate Deciduous Forest", it is informative, but I don't think the sentences on leaf litter really add anything - it's a bit off the point in my opinion. Same with the "cute fuzzy animals" beloved by Hollywood. Again, some additional locations to mention would include Northern and Western Europe, and (I think) north-eastern China, Japan and Korea.

Grasslands - I think you have done a good job with this too, but you might consider leaving out the side comments regarding prairie dogs and bisons.

Lots of good information in the section on the Taiga too, however again I would suggest you leave out the sentences on maple syrup manufacturing, and the stuff in the brackets about the moose. Also, I thought many parts of Canada were actually grassland and tundra, and that Taiga might only refer to some parts of it? Incidentally, you should mention that many parts of Russia share this Biome.

The piece on the tundra is also fine, but I would consider dropping the first two sentences. Tundral conditions are far more like being locked in a freezer than being stuck at the edge of the universe, where temperatures can go down to -273 degrees celcius. You also mention it as "the treeless biome", but so too are grasslands, and, in many cases, deserts and tundra.

Could you consider changing the title of your last section? Possibly something like "Summary", or "to wrap up", or "What it means for us" or suchlike? Also you have a typo with the word "existence"

Sorry if this review appears a bit strong, but in reality the comments I have made are just pointers in terms of style and readability - your content is fine. With some small changes it would be great to see this go into the edited guide .

Woodpigeon

Hi Intersturber!

Any news on this?

sorry for the long absence....
I've been locked inside of a straight-jacket on Sirius 2 for quite awhile now....(not really, just too busy to have a life).
I didn't like the way this one turned out, but I'm just leaving it on for those crazy enough to still read it and maybe, just maybe like it.

So do you want to leave it in Peer Reveiw and keep working on it or would you like to just leave it as it is and it can be part of the unedited guide?

If you want to do the first opition then that would be great because we'd like an entry on this topic in the edited guide. If however you wanted to use the second option then would you mind moving this out of PR? If you could just click on the remove link next to your entry on the Peer Review main page and there you go. (note there are several pages of entries in PR if you can't find the conversation thread that relates to yours you may have to click on "see more conversations" once or twice)

I would like to have it edited, but no one seems to have interest in it, save for you. If you like it, use it, edit it, etc....
I just don't know how many people would actually like it.

Several people have an interest in it, they just wanted to see if you were going to act on the suggestions made in the PR forum before we reccomened it to be part of the edited guide you see. Even if you don't think Woodpidgeons suggestions are rubbish if you could just say it's finsished and I'm sure someone will think that's it's edited guide material.
The only change I'd ask you to make is if you could put and tags around the paragraphs which would make it a bit easier to read. BUt if you don't make this change I'm sure an subeditor could do it for you.
I do hope you make a couple of tweaks (it shouldn't take more than 10 mintues) because I'd like to see this in the edited guide

Z

Including me - I was waiting to pick it! Come on, Intersturber, we're behind you here!

Hi Interstuber,

I liked the article as well, but it is really rare where people submit an entry to Peer Review, and everybody states straight away that it should go into the Edited Guide without any further editing.

The process is 1) that you finish your article as best as you can and submit it to Peer Review, then 2) you await feedback (normally this happens during the first week or two - if there is no reaction to the feedback after this time, then the number of comments begins to decline), 3) you take onboard the comments that people have made, agree with or reject the comments and go back to edit your entry as appropriate, then 4) you let people know that you have made some further changes, and ask them what do they think about it. There may be further comments and further changes done before you are happy. When most people are happy with the entry, then its time to sit back and wait for the article to be recommended to the guide. Then, there is a further wait until the article becomes part of the edited guide.

Peer review is not the same as a judging panel - the reviewers are here to give you constructive feedback as to how you can improve the entry in order to get it accepted into the guide. You need to edit it and to enter into a conversation with the reviewers about the changes you have made.

I hope this helps. I think with a small number of adjustments on your part that this article could easily become accepted into the guide.

Woodpigeon

Could someone, in brief sentances and without going into immense detail that i won't understand, tell me what needs changing. I don't want to write a book, or confuse others who don't know a whole lot about this sort of thing. It would be greatly appreciated.

Intersturber