Align with IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0

[timalamenciak]

The best typology of ecosystems that I have found is the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2020-037-En.pdf

I'd love to do some work to integrate it into ENVO, but it looks like there are a lot of previous efforts to delineate ecosystem types already and I am worried about mucking things up. It has what may be some helpful organizing levels:

• lvl 1 - Realm (ENVO term not found) - defined by IUCN as: "One of five major components of the biosphere that differ fundamentally in ecosystem organisation and function: terrestrial, freshwater, marine, subterranean, atmospheric"
• lvl 2 - Biome biome - aka "functional biome" - defined by IUCN as: "A component of a realm united by one or a few common major ecological drivers that regulate major ecological functions. Biomes are derived from the top-down by subdivision of realms (Level 1)."
• lvl 3 - ecosystem functional group (EFG) - "A group of related ecosystems within a biome that share common ecological drivers
  promoting convergence of biotic traits that characterise the group. "

One way to proceed may be to rework the hierarchy of ecosystem, but there are some levels of precision not covered by the IUCN list (e.g. agricultural ecosystem and its subclasses). Another way is to individually go through the IUCN EFGs and add them as synonyms to the existing ecosystem terms in ENVO. For e.g.:

large freshwater lake biome = IUCN EFG 2.1 Large permanent freshwater lakes .

I am open to doing work on this and suggestions of ways to proceed!

For context, this would be helpful in automatically classifying and annotating ecological restoration research.

[pbuttigieg]

Hi @timalamenciak

I'd love to do some work to integrate it into ENVO, but it looks like there are a lot of previous efforts to delineate ecosystem types already and I am worried about mucking things up.

We set the initial biome-level structure after the WWF Biomes, which was based on global surveys. There are also other systems that we've interleaved while trying to preserve semantic coherence.

It has what may be some helpful organizing levels:

• lvl 1 - Realm (ENVO term not found) - defined by IUCN as: "One of five major components of the biosphere that differ fundamentally in ecosystem organisation and function: terrestrial, freshwater, marine, subterranean, atmospheric"

This is a good term from biogeography. We should add that under ENVO:ecosystem and can add subcasses. We can then add parthood relations between the subclasses and classes like biomes.

• lvl 2 - Biome biome - aka "functional biome" - defined by IUCN as: "A component of a realm united by one or a few common major ecological drivers that regulate major ecological functions. Biomes are derived from the top-down by subdivision of realms (Level 1)."

It's an odd definition. It can be true of biomes, but also any other ecosystem (all ecosystems have major drivers that regulate their functions; "major" is a wiggle word). I think our current biome list will do the job for most of their types. We can add others based on the climactic successional model (the "normal" understanding of biomes).

The parthood relations between realms and biomes would accomplish the subdivision they note.

• lvl 3 - ecosystem functional group (EFG) - "A group of related ecosystems within a biome that share common ecological drivers
  promoting convergence of biotic traits that characterise the group. "

Again, this is a little off definitionally, but I get what their trying to say.

We'd focus on representing the actual drivers themselves, such that they can be asserted as affecting a set of ecosystems, and then let the reasoning engines infer the groups.

One way to proceed may be to rework the hierarchy of ecosystem, but there are some levels of precision not covered by the IUCN list (e.g. agricultural ecosystem and its subclasses).

I'd be reluctant to do this wholesale, as our hierarchy is logical (e.g. a biome is a more specific form of ecosystem) rather than a convenience hierarchy (e.g. someone decides that some things are in some categories).

Another way is to individually go through the IUCN EFGs and add them as synonyms to the existing ecosystem terms in ENVO. For e.g.:

large freshwater lake biome = IUCN EFG 2.1 Large permanent freshwater lakes .

This is also viable, if the definitions are compatible. In your example, I think it would work.

More discussed in our call unfolding now.

[pbuttigieg]

As this is a "big issue", I've created a project for IUCN alignment where we can gather finer grained issues. I'll start with realm, but @timalamenciak please add others as needed (e.g. one for "Incorporate IUCN marine biomes" , "Add subterranean lithic biome")

I'll close this issue as we begin those.

[timalamenciak]

Adding a description of a use-case for restoration ecology here:

A conservation organization is given a piece of farmland to restore. A restoration practitioner finds out that a field was historically part of a wetland complex but drained with tile drainage. Our database will allow such a practitioner to find peer reviewed studies, data-sets and grey literature that document how to restore (restoration process) a farm field (degradation type_) to a wetland (ecosystem type).

[pbuttigieg]

xref #573

[dr-shorthair]

@DavidKeith you might be interested to see the ENVO maintainers working to align with GET

Some skepticism about the use of 'Realm' in GET - see #1556 (comment)