Talk:Montane forest

Merging and/or renaming

The content of this article looks like a better referenced version of Montane. I never liked the title "montane" for that other article, because it is a vague adjective rather than a specific noun, like "montane zone". I think we should merge the articles somehow. I don't think here is yet enough material to support separate articles on "montane forest" and "montane zone".

It sounds like User:Peter coxhead objects to the merge. The two concepts have a lot of overlap --- I am open to the naming of the eventual merge. But, I would like some sort of merge. —hike395 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I just thought of a compromise. Let's have an article called Montane zone, analogous to Subalpine zone, which discusses general facts about the zone. We can then have a section titled "montane forest" which talks about the forests with the zone, such as cloud forest. Does this sound good? I am happy to make this edit, although I want to hear from Peter first. —hike395 (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a subject in which I have any great expertise, I should say; I just researched it a bit when "Montane forest" was created. At face value, it seems unnecessary to have Montane, Montane forest, Montane grasslands and shrublands and Afromontane. Although the last two seem quite authoritative, the first of them has no references at all and the second has no inline referencing; both link to a lot of other habitat articles. All seem to depend heavily on the WWF's definition of "ecoregions", starting from this paper; I doubt very much that they present a balanced and neutral POV. For example, I note that the WWF doesn't have any category called "alpine"; e.g. what it and the Montane grasslands and shrublands article calls "montane grasslands" includes "alpine meadows". I conclude that these "WWF articles" really need a lot of work. Hence for the present, they are probably best ignored.

So I think your idea of a single article called Montane zone with a section on "Montane forest" is a good one. You could usefully add something on the rather different defintion of "montane" in the WWF ecoregions. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hike395, I'm glad you suggested a discussion here. I was planning to suggest that this morning, but you beat me to it.

Do we want "montane" to include subalpine and alpine regions—so it would cover everything in the mountains, where altitude makes a big difference—or just up to the timberline or the tree line, as in the current montane?

The current montane says that in the tropics, the submontane zone is 1000–1800 m and the montane zone is 1800–3000 m, while this says the transition to "lower montane" is often in the range 1200–1500 m and the transition to "upper montane" is often in the range 2000–3000 m. So roughly speaking, their "lower montane" is excluded by our present article as "submontane". Do we want to continue with that, or do we want to move to a definition where "montane" goes down to where altitude makes a big difference, equivalent to 1000-ish m in the tropics and a few hundred m in Scotland?

I have no strong feelings on whether we should have one article with sections, or a separate article for each of the sections (with links from altitudinal zonation, or even a "montane ecosystems" article that serves as an umbrella for separate articles on grasslands, lower montane forests, cloud forests, etc.—but I think maybe we should agree on what we're talking about, even if the experts can't agree on terminology. I do feel that "montane zone" isn't a good title because "zone" seems to imply something specific, and there's a lot of variation in the terminology.

Speaking of experts, I take it none of us knows any on the 'pedia who have a global perspective on ecosystems? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's clear from the sources we've looked at between us that there is no clear consistent definition of "montane". Note that in addition to the ranges Jerry gave above the WWF definition includes all the alpine zone so goes even higher in tropical regions. So I would say that the article should use a very broad definition, but although it should mention the WWF use to cover alpine, I wouldn't in the article, because I can't find any other source which does so. So I feel that the article should cover everything that is not clearly lowland or alpine, i.e. what different sources call lower montane, submontane, montane, upper montane, noting that the definitions are not primarily by height but by vegetation changes associated with height.

But I agree that we could use a real expert; I'll leave a note in various places. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, our articles on biomes, ecoregions and other high-level units need a lot of work. And really some sort of an overarching vision. But the problem really isn't just our articles, it's the state of the field as a whole - it's not just competing systems of classification, it's competing philosophical and mechanistic approaches to vegetation classification. And the problem is that no one has ever (AFAIK) tried to rationalise the collection of systems as a whole. Sounds like an interesting project...but not for Wikipedia.

The major challenges an article like this faces are (a) inconsistent definitions, and (b) fundamentally different vegetation units (tropical versus temperate, for starters). As regards the suggestions here, the problem with montane zone is that it's much more than just vegetation, climate and geomorphology - it's also sociology and rural development, all sorts of human development issues. So my thought would be to move montane to montane zone, and either keep this article as a section within that one for now, or just add a summary of this article to that one, together with a {{See main}}. As for the lower montane/subalpine/alpine issue - really what we need is a comprehensive article about Highlands. Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Indeed, ecological terminology is quite messy, and I cannot claim to be an expert. But, let's not confuse two separate entities. The WWF classifies ecoregions, which are regions of the earth that have similar climate and ecosystems. Montane zone is a more specific idea. It goes back to Mirriam's concept of life zones from the early 20th century, where he noted that going up in altitude made similar changes to the ecology of a place as travelling towards the pole. Mirriam's original terminology for altitudinal zonation ("Hudsonian") has fallen into disuse, but has mostly been replaced by terminology such as "subalpine zone" or "montane zone" (at least in the US).

This is why I disliked the article titled "montane" so much. That adjective can be attached to ecoregions, or to a life zone. I think that "montane zone" is a well-known term (see, e.g., entries in the Google Books search [1]). I think it deserves an article.

Now, "montane forest" is a bit more amibiguous, because the WWF uses it as a phrase to describe ecoregions. I thought that it also meant forests that lie within the montane zone, but I cannot find much support for that --- it may simply refer to forests in mountains!

To me, it looks like most of the material here at Montane forest is actually about the life zone called "montane zone". That is why I would like to merge. —hike395 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with Merriam's system (I'm just a plant ecologist, but I'm interested in the history of vegetation science, so I'm surprised by my lack of familiarity with his system). Modern usage of life zone generally applies to the Holdridge system (which is, if anything, a bit coarser a scale than the WWF system), so it's best to avoid using it in Merriam's sense - it's a recipe for confusion. Of course, Leslie Holdridge used "montane" as a modifier.

As for "montane forest" - it's generally used for forests that differ from lowland forests as a consequence of location at higher elevations. In my experience, "montane forest" is more widely used than "montane zone" (fwiw, try a Google Scholar or Google Books search for the terms with quotes). Guettarda (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that a plant ecologist has decided to join in the discussion and editing --- I would really value your help: I am an amateur.

To make the discussion here more concrete, I've restarted a new version of the article at Montane zone. I certianly claim no ownership --- everyone is welcome to perform extensive edits, if they wish. I marked it as "under construction" so that readers realize that it is a work in progress. I did not change any redirects, yet, until we come to a consensus.

In the newer version, I tried to draw a distinction between "montane forests" and the specific idea of a "montane zone". The article doesn't mention "life zone" at all, but refers to altitudinal zonation (that article is not in good shape, either). I hope I got it right. I think that "montane forest" is actually more general than "montane zone" (e.g., you can have a montane forest in a subalpine zone, as Guettarda implies above). So, the article is a bit schizophrenic. I'm not sure how to write a general article on "montane forests", because it is such a high-level concept.

What do other editors think? Feel free to comment or edit. —hike395 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're doing some work on this, but I think you've got things backwards in the current version. As you say, a "montane forest" can occur outside the "montane zone", so I don't think we want it as a subsection of "montane zone". Also, "sky island" and especially "lower timberline" are concepts that belong with "montane forest", not with "montane zone", as the lower timberline is the lower boundary of the forest, even if it's in the submontane zone.

If we agree that "montane" means "anything that differs from the lowlands because of elevation", than "montane forest" is indeed a high-level concept. An article could look something like my last version. The things I was thinking of adding to that are a remark that despite the similarity to higher latitudes, montane forests often have high levels of endemism, especially in the tropics, and maybe some links to whatever articles we have on different types of high-elevation forests. You might consider that such a stubby article isn't worth having. Also, that leaves us looking for another name for Holdridge's "montane" life zones.

Highland (landform), unfortunately, also needs a lot of work, but maybe it should be the umbrella article for high-altitude habitats. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not having an article at the adjective Montane, and prefer Montane zone. I'm curious though what could you put in a montane zone article that could not be included in a montane forest article?

Jerry, when you say that "a "montane forest" can occur outside the "montane zone"", I'm wondering if that is only true in the casual sense if we mix definintions. For instance serious authors on these subjects usually apply montane forest to just the montane zone, and then for forest in the subalpine zone they call it a subalpine forest, even though it is still "of the mountain" as the informal definition says. Here are some examples: Nagy 2009 and NPS.gov. Not sure I see a need for both Montane zone & Montane forest articles. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the reference to Nagy. I looked through the book: it confirms my original thinking that montane forest occurs in the montane zone. Now I feel more confident about the current form of Montane zone. Guettarda and Jerry: what do you think? —hike395 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Tom.

What definition of "montane zone" do you have in mind? The definition currently at montane zone excludes the "submontane" region, below 1800m in the tropics, so it appears to correspond to Nagy's "upper montane". But Nagy's use implies a "lower montane". His New Guinea graphic goes down to about 1800 m, though, so his "upper montane" may be the same as our current "montane", which would make his "montane" much bigger than ours. On page 50 in that book, in reference to Austria, there's "lower montane" (oak), "montane" (beech), and "upper montane" (conifers), and on p. 279, "submontane", "lower montane", and "upper montane". The NPS site appears to start "montane" where the altitude makes a difference, so it doesn't have "submontane". Here's a book that uses "upper montane" as an equivalent of "subalpine", though I have the impression that this is, as you say, uncommon.

It seems to me that there's no predominant definition in the literature. In that case we can pick one (but mention others) to keep things simple, or we can try to be as neutral as possible. What do you think? Or is there a predominant definition?

In answer to the question of what a "montane zone" article could cover beside "montane forest", I'd say montane desert, montane scrub or shrublands, montane grassland (all of those are in Holdridge's diagram under "montane") and montane agriculture. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:38, 23 March 2012

Hi Jerry. I sure agree the definitions are all over the board. I couldn't begin to say which we should pick, perhaps we need to stay "above" them all and discuss the differences in types of definitions; they seem to be different for almost every set of mountains. One common thing though, I think, is that montane forest is just in the montane zone. If the author separates out a subalpine zone then the forest in it is "supalpine forest"; and if there is a submontane zone then the forest there is called "submontane forest". So if montane forest is just in the montane zone, then "sky island" and "lower timeberline" might either belong, or not, in both subjects equally. One side note I noticed is that it is fairly common to not have a submontane zone in an author's zone systems, for instance subalpine appears in about 5 or 10 times more books than submontaine.

If the "montane zone" article could cover forest, desert, scrub, shrublands, and grassland; then would that be too large an aritcle? Perhaps most of those except forest would get minor mention; with a link to their broader, not-necessarily-montane articles?

Whatever you guys decide, it would sure be nice if temperate montane areas get their due weight in the article, since they are the majority of montane-zone areas. Old Wikipedia articles seemed to bias towards the tropical areas. --Tom Hulse (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:I think what Jerry is describing is far broader than the concept of montane zone as used by ecologists. in fact, what Jerry described would be a great overview article at Montane ecology, which we don't have at all (there is a category, though. The definition and geographical distribution of montane zones is broken in the current article. We should not judge the definition from what is in the article right now. Also, there is a lot of ambiguity in all of the uses of "montane", both in ecology and out.

Here is a proposal:

1. Copy the current material in montane zone to montane forest, make montane zone redirect to montane forest.
2. Fix the definition of montane forest to cover all forest below subalpine and above lowland, suitably cited.
3. Broaden the coverage of montane forest to equitably cover temperate forests.
4. Turn montane into a disambiguation page, with entries on all of the ecological meanings of montane in WP, including WWF and Holdridge
5. Create a montane ecology overview article. We can start an outline here.

I think I will do 1-3 soon (to keep up the editing tempo). Does this proposal satisfy all of the editors? —hike395 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did steps 1 and 4. —hike395 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think almost all of this good, so thanks! The one thing I'm not sure about is redirecting

"montane zone" to "montane forest", since whatever that zone is, there are other ecosystems beside forest there. Maybe it should redirect to "montane" or "montane ecology", or maybe it should be about Holdridge's "montane zone". But I think we (that is, you) have made good progress. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hike, I do like combining the articles, and I really like the disambiguation page at Montane, but do you think there is consensus to remove Montane zone down to a redirect? I'm not completely sure, but I had thought Peter, Guettarda, and myself had proposed having the full Montane article there, with Montane forest being a section within that.

On your point #2, definition, I'm not sure if we really want to attempt to fix a worldwide definition for "montane forest", since it varies so widely. For instance one common definiton is the one you listed... 'below subalpine and above lowland (for authors who don't recognize a submontane zone)'; another is 'below subalpine and above submontane'(for any author who recognizes a submontane zone); and another very common one for authors not talking about individual zones is 'below alpine and above lowland' (in other words any forest on the mountain). Do you think we should discuss instead of define? --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I was struggling to find a solution that would satsify all of the editors involved in the discussion. In the discussion above, there are two separate notions of what should go into "montane zone". One is the definition I am familiar with --- the forested zone below subalpine. The other is a very broad definition that makes sense to layreaders, which I think maps to montane ecology.

There does not seem to be enough material to support separate articles on montane forest and montane zone. Given that montane forest is a more precise term than montane zone, and the latter is confusing to laypeople, I thought we could call the article montane forest, and have montane zone redirect.

We could turn montane zone into a dab page, too, where the choices are montane forest and montane ecology. Jerry and Tom: would that satisfy you?

Re definition. We could discuss in the article. I have not seen the definition where montane forest stretches up to alpine --- could you dig up some references for that? We would have to choose one definition, in order to discuss geographical and altitudinal distribution. —hike395 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Contents of montane and montane ecology

There is a fair amount of thrashing of montane: the community seems to feel it should not be a redirect. So, we're back to figuring out what to do. I think that we should create the montane ecology article and redirect montane to that. Comments? —hike395 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Later: wrote an initial stubby article on montane ecology. I'm not that satisfied with it: I'm hoping other editors can improve it. I don't know if it has that much more information that montane forest. —hike395 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is much sensible discussion above. My personal opposition to reducing Montane to a disambiguation was that it represented a fracturing of highly related information into three small, highly specific articles. The work beginning at Montane ecology is positive. The ecology title provides us with a similar avenue as "montane zone" albeit a slightly broader one. I would advocate that the information in montane forest and montane grassland and shrubland be merged into the ecology article, possibly as subsections. The content present on all of those articles combined it not overwhelming, so I believe a merge could be well accommodated for. (Bear in mind we could keep the forests and grasslands redirects in the category structure if preferable). A "Definition" section is also needed to explore the overlap and difference in usages between montane/alpine etc. SFB 12:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rereading all of the discussion, above, makes me think there seems to be a consensus for merging into one broad article. I can attempt a merge of montane forest into montane ecology, although I am about to go on wikibreak, so will not be around to respond to comments.

There are a number of editors who value separate WWF-related articles. I would not attempt to merge montane grassland and shrubland into montane ecology before posting a merge template there and waiting for more discussion. —hike395 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Later: I made an attempt to expand montane ecology by folding montane forest into it. I aslo tried to follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and condensed alpine tundra and montane grassland and shrubland into a new section. Does this edit bring the article closer to the consensus? What do other ediors think? —hike395 (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)