Talk:Habitat destruction

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vahuejote20. Peer reviewers: Dayminn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LoveTheExperience. Peer reviewers: ShanPitt, TOTM123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Content

While the latter half of this article is quite detailed and comprehensive, I fear that the beginning is overly biased regarding the causes of habitat destruction. I believe the introduction should cover only the definition of Habitat destruction, Habitats, and some of the consequences, and briefly tough on some of the possible causes. The latter part of this article should focus on causes, namely humans, but should also include natural ones as well, as the mechanics behind them, are all but the same. As this change would be a major rewrite, I would like to put it up for discussion first. --Sergris (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Should this perhaps be merged into one article habitat destruction and fragmentation? If it grew to an extreme size it could always be split, but the article is currently very insubstantial on its own. Richard001 07:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I support this - At the present time there isn't enough content here for habitat destruction to have its own article. And the topics are so related too. Kurieeto 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: The two do not necessarily occur simultaneously and they have different effects on biodiversity. The lack of material in the article should not be hidden using a merge; "habitat destruction" should be expanded independently. Bendž|Ť 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you have habitat fragmentation without destruction? Richard001 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about vice versa. Nevertheless, there could be government-backed restoration (e.g. reforestation) going on in one area to greenwash a highway being built through the habitat. It has to be emphasised that biodiversity can be reduced without a net reduction of habitat simply by ignoring the need for wildlife corridors. Maybe we could merge deforestation with this article, seeing as it's the most prolific type of habitat destruction. Bendž|Ť 08:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One can have habitat destruction without fragmentation by destroying the habitat completely, but fragmentation requires destruction of some sort. There is no denying the two topics are tightly related. There probably is room for two separate articles if they were both developed to perfection, but it's a shame to have something so short, so I think merging might be a good idea for now. I'm don't feel strongly about it though.

I don't feel deforestation is suitable for a merge - it would dwarf the article by many orders of magnitude and is only one of many types of habitat loss. As a side note, habitat is also as poorly developed as this article, which is another tragedy. Richard001 09:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge due to recent additions and expansion by User:Ccain. —Viriditas | Talk 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - habitat fragmentation and habitat destruction are distinct, though related concepts (see my comment below). Guettarda (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Habitat fragmentation, specifically by human induced acts, is a byproduct of destruction with its own specific side effects that vary according how the fragmentation is induced. For example, slash and burn clearing has many detrimental side effects, of which fragmentation is one; building a dam or a road has many other detrimental side effects, of which fragmentation may be included. Which plant and animal communities are fragmented varies with each case. It is too complex to be lumped under the general term of destruction.168.16.208.188 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC) — 168.16.208.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is not an argument against the merge. It is an argument for fleshing out this area, be it in one or two articles. You are cordially invited to do so. — Sebastian 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Habitat fragmentation is a big, complex concept, which is independent from (although at times related to) habitat destruction. The article is small at this stage because people haven't fully developed it yet - but it should be left separate so that this development can occur over time and the concept is not misunderstood to be a part of habitat destruction. Eventually this could form a peer-reviewed feature artcile. 132.181.180.148 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC) — 132.181.180.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Before I can take your vague promise of a "peer-reviewed feature artcile" (sic) seriously, I need to see some evidence that you have experience with contributing to such "artciles". I don't think your argument corresponds to the realities of Wikipedia. If you're afraid of people misunderstanding a distinction, the first and foremost thing to do about it is to clarify it in all relevant articles. Only when that is achieved can we as a community decide what best to do. Currently, the articles do not clarify this destinction, therefore nothing keeps us from merging them. — Sebastian 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The tyrany of Wikipedia people wanting to merge things that they marginally understand just because they seem linguistacally similar is a real draw back to the deveopment of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.180.148 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to suggest the concepts are 'independent', and a matter of taste whether you consider them one and the same or not. As the person who suggested the merge, it's also rather offensive to use words like 'marginally understand the concept'. Richard001 05:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only factual argument against the merge was put forward by Bendž, and I find it not convincing. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that here we are on articles that describe the problems of fragmentation, and some editors argue that fragmentation of articles is inherently good? The fact that there are differences in some cases is no reason for keeping two distinct articles; in the contrary, these differences can be nicely discussed in one merged article. In that regard, articles are like habitats: The easier we make it for our readers to see connections, the better. If Bendž feels that this is easier with two distinct articles, then I propose that they demonstrate this by adding the necessary distinction in both articles. I believe it when I see it. — Sebastian 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Habitat destruction and habitat fragmentation are distinct, though related ideas. Habitat destruction can exist with or without fragmentation - while habitat destruction tends to result in increased fragmentation, it can also reduce fragmentation (by eliminating certain fragments). In addition, there are many naturally fragmented habitats. It is also possible to distinguish fragmentation effects from those of habitat fragmentation. Guettarda (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Stongly oppose. The subject of habitat destruction is enormous and hardly welcomes more material. From a biologist's point of view the merger is an absurdity. Cewvero (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro sentence is flawed

The intro sentence is at best misleading. Use of the word physical change connotes mechanical disturbance such as logging or trawling. In fact some of the greatest forms of habitat destruction are generated by chemical and meteorological phenomena. Chemical contamination of surface water, groundwater or soil can render a habitat destroyed or severely impaired. Climate change (whether natural or human induced) can cause aridity or temperature change that can cause similar consequences for flora and fauna. I attempted to make an edit to fix this sentence and another editor reverted my edit. I can adduce many sources to support my edit, but more importantly I would like to hear the comments of other parties besides myself and the reverting editor to build a consensu on this point. Please comment with professional ecologists and environmental scientists most needed here. Cewvero (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about those things; this article is explicitly about human-induced habitat destruction: "Habitat destruction is human-induced habitat change that results in a reduction of natural habitat. This includes conversion of land to agriculture, urban sprawl, infrastructure development, and other anthropogenic changes to the characteristics of land." Please produce your sources and add them to the article. I am especially interested in seeing sources for "some of the greatest forms of habitat destruction are generated by chemical and meteorological phenomena." I don't know why, but it sounds like you are trying to mitigate physical changes for some reason. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cewvero, after talking with you on your user page, I've reverted to your version, as my version did not improve upon the problem. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

This article on Habitat destruction really requires a major expansion, if it should reach higher status. This article covers a very broad scope, so there shouldn't be any reason why this article is at its current state. One good starting point to improve this article is perhaps expand the Solution and the Ecosystem section. Human activity section should also be expanded to contain a few subsection discussing how each type of human activity contribute to habitat destruction and by how much damage they are inflicting. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think also that the section on effects on humans seems extremely limited, eg

Probably the most profound impact that habitat destruction has on people is the loss of many valuable ecosystem services....

Surely there are more important effects than these. It connects, though, to concepts like the purpose of existence. Do humans wish to live as an isolated species on a planet extinct of other species? Can people even survive that way?

It is a bit depressing that people argue that the main effect of extinction of other species is that it might affect the weather.

Createangelos (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing/unclear citations

Many of these citations in this article are too vague to be informative: for example, one of the citations given is "MEA 2005", with no other author information. Can these citations be improved? Jarble (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The references can be improved a little but there is nothing substantial missing. In case you weren't aware under the Notes section is a References section where the citation are supposed to be written out in full. It is possible to add links to Google Books listings. From Google Books we can see that the MEA stands for Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). - Shiftchange (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Habitat destruction of native organisms in developed countries

This page seems to focus on main species that vanish due to habitat destruction (say monkeys disappearing due to rainforest being cleared). What isn't mentioned though are less noticible changes occuring in developed countries. For instance, in central europe, many (seed-eating) birds vanish in favor of just a few bird species which eat earthworms (ie Common blackbird, Eurasian_magpie), and thus benefit from short grass (such as the grass in lawns) KVDP (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible un-needed section

Section on global warming doesn't add very much to the article information or quality and everything included could easily be included by simply linking to the actual wiki global warming page. Alternatively, this section could be expanded upon as there is plenty of information that could help to provide a greater explanation of the overall topic, if fully explained. I just don't see the current benefit of the couple of sentences as it it quite vague and pretty much common knowledge. Thoughts? LoveTheExperience (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be expanded -- its ne of the key drivers of habitat destruction right now- but it would require some deep reading of the IPCC reports, etc, Sadads (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the section could definitely do with some expansion. Even without expansion I don't think the section should be removed especially as as it's all referenced. Suonii180 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on that section now. EMsmile (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liolithelion (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Diamond.xza (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)