Two scientists have proposed a new way to map ecosystems that takes people into account. The new method divides the globe into anthropogenic biomes, or anthromes, to better describe the human-altered landscape.
So, instead of traditional biomes based on climate and vegetation (tundra, tropical rainforests, grasslands, deserts, etc.), Prof. Erle Ellis of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and Prof. Navin Ramankutty of McGill University propose using major categories of anthromes such as “dense settlements,” “villages,” “croplands,” “rangelands,” “forested” and “wildlands.” (Map graphic is courtesy of The Encyclopedia of Earth. See full-size map here.)
Such a system would incorporate the human impact on the biosphere. The new map would
supplement the current biomes as another way of looking at the world.
I love maps and different mapmaking approaches (I have both a Peters World Atlas and a National Geographic Atlas at home), so I find this new idea fascinating. Maybe we shouldn’t refer to idealized biomes that scarcely exist anymore. Ellis and Ramankutty point out that only about 20 percent of ice-free land surface is pristine (and would match the traditional biome model). People have changed the world in many ways and it could be time to look at ecosystems in a way that acknowledges the human impact.
We have reshaped about three-quarters of the land on Earth. Ellis and Ramankutty argue that all 6.6 billion of us now constitute a “force of nature rivaling climate and geology in shaping the terrestrial biosphere.”
They continue: “This new model of the biosphere moves us away from an outdated view of
the world as ‘natural ecosystems with humans disturbing them’ and towards a vision of ‘human
systems with natural ecosystems embedded within them’.” They contend that the new system is critical to ecological studies and sustainable management of the biosphere in the 21st century.
It sounds good to me, if we use it in addition to the biomes. One note of caution: The new anthromes could lead some folks to easily compromise parts of nature, say in the “dense settlements” areas (for example, someone could argue “dense settlements don’t have to have parks or open spaces”). If we switch to anthromes, will we forget and neglect the biomes? Will some places cease to be special because they are no longer tundra or boreal forest, but now they’re called “forested” or “wildlands”?
Post your comments here!
Hi Dan,
It was great to see your very insightful discussion of our recently-published work on Anthropogenic Biomes. And thank you for your positive comments on our “revisioning” of the biosphere!
Your cautionary note echoes comments made by others about our work:
If we consider the biosphere as being mostly anthropogenic, will this devalue the conservation of nature?
We have two comments on this. First, anthromes were never intended as a replacement for biomes, but as an alternative view. Biomes based on natural ecosystem patterns should continue to be used.
Second, we feel that basing nature conservation on the view that only ecosystems untouched by human hands are worth conserving is not going to serve us well in the long-term.
We address this in detail at the EarthForum in our post entitled:
“Conserving Nature in an Anthropogenic Biosphere”
http://www.earthportal.org/forum/?p=410
Thank you again for your good work on this. We’d love to see your further comments on this either here, or even better, on EarthForum.
Best wishes,
Erle and Navin