Biome List

~sciocont wrote:

Pretty good. yes, animals and fungi are heterotrophs.

Okay, but my kind-of-like-fungus-but-uses-photsynthesis-and-thermosynthesis is an autotroph?

~sciocont wrote:

caekdaemon wrote:

Question, would it be possible for the player to change a biome from one type to another?
For example, cutting a forest down into grassland, or orbital bombardment to reduce deserts to fields of glass.

Yep, that should be possible. Good point.

.... I'm going to have to assign a new set of values - permanence and sucession - to the stuff we've got. (Not that anyone else knows what I'm talking about, so I'll just figure it out myself...)
In summary, we actually probably need that to be possible to help drive evolution/migration. Basically, when conditions change, biomes will change. And I need to do some table making.

@ Alaska - I don't think we've covered combotroph (Calli just made up a word!) organisms in the least.
A fungus is a decomposer - therefore a heterotroph.
A fungus that incorperates low-grade photosynthesis is both an autotroph and a heterotroph.... Aaaand I'm not certain how that works out with our current niche system. I'd classify it as a heterotroph and then we'd need to be able to assign these types of things production values....

This just got so much more complicated.

I don't suppose any of you happened to have watched Alien Planet?

It has a large number of alien biomes to pick from.

I might have... was that the discovery special on other planets and how life might have evolved on them?

Edit: I have secession assignations for all our collected biomes so far. Add them, Scio - you know you want to.
Secession stages:

Spoiler:

My first unit of Environmental science spoilered for your convenience.

Spoiler:

Anyone who knows what I'm babbling about already (or is just prepared to take my word for it,) should now mention whether they would like to start measuring sucession instead of the undifined quality of "Biodiversity."

*Remembers ecology essay last year*

@Calli (May I call you Calli?) : I hear you!

So a bio-diversity value would determine how Biomes form, or how species within them can evolve and how these species go through Primary, secondary and tertiary succession when something drastically changes the make up of a biome?


EDIT: And I would assume all Pelagic zones would be stuck at 0?

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

I might have... was that the discovery special on other planets and how life might have evolved on them?

Edit: I have secession assignations for all our collected biomes so far. Add them, Scio - you know you want to.
Secession stages:

Spoiler:

My first unit of Environmental science spoilered for your convenience.

Spoiler:

Anyone who knows what I'm babbling about already (or is just prepared to take my word for it,) should now mention whether they would like to start measuring sucession instead of the undifined quality of "Biodiversity."

I very much like this, we can now begin to quantify biodiversity. But I downgraded blue holes to a 1.

Would a ruined city be classed as a form of biome?

Afterall, who knows what kind of life could live in the rusty skeletal structure of a skyscraper.

Yes, Pezzalis, you may. Much love for knowing what I babble about... Glad someone understood all that.
Pelagic zones pretty much are a 0, but so far, as I've been working on the secession tree for which biomes grow into what, I've been classifying them with an elevation/temperature slider (if the temperature goes up, the zone moves to higher elevations or colder latitudes if it no longer can exist where it is,) so I put Scio's ocean strata in rather than classifying zones by distance from shore.

@ Scio: Gracias, hermanito mio. I disagree on blue holes, as they're more intricate than the simpler cave systems, but they're probably in the realm of 1.5... We can quibble about whether we want values to be present in-between or not later.

@ caekdaemon: I'm going to say no. A ruined city would just be taken over by whatever biome happened to surround it, following the stages of sucession like any other disturbed area. However, resources would probably be concentrated in it, so having one would most likely have an effect on the biome.

And because I feel generous, you get two biomes:

Spoiler:

Also, according to my research, a general rule of thumb is that temperatures drop 10 C (which is also 10 K) for every 1000 meters you ascend in altitude. This means that our slider for how stuff moves upwards and away from the hottest latitudes as global temperature increases is suspiciously easy math. I'm going to set up a tree line equation, which means some data needs to be converted into meters... stupid english standard system.

Liking those two biomes. As a note, I believe it's air density that determines where the treeline is, since at that level they can't get enough CO₂.

Caekdaemon- I disagree with Cali. a ruined city might be able to be its own biome, and a city would definitely be a biome, though its biodiversity would be about 1, and size would be very limited, probably only up to midlarge carnivores.

Also, I believe it's succession stages, not secession stages. I'll be thinking up more biomes, and as an OT note, I'm just about done creating a font for us. see it @Fontstruct

I think that extremley large invertibrates should be included in the abyss biome ex/ giant squid.

@ Scio. Set it up as a sub-stage, because a ruined city is inevitably going to be influenced by the biome surrounding it. Also, don't be so quick to limit it's niches - remember Angkor Wat? Niches will be influenced ultimately by the biome that surrounds the city, and how fast it breaks down said city. Ruined cities could be a sub-category of biomes, but "ruined cities" in general shouldn't be an applicable biome.
To my great chargin, I cannot read my first semester notes. Sucession or Secession, both appear by their dictionary definitions to be applicable. I believe that it is secession, not least because I have been writing it that way on exams without ever being called on it.

@ Lukas;
I don't think we got niches to be as specific as "invertebrate," but you raise a point. We need to do something about organisms that exist because they migrate between biomes, filling niches and using resources in both.

Edit: found ENVS textbook. You are correct, and my handwriting is wrong. It's "Sucession Stages," everybody.

Lukas99 wrote:

I think that extremley large invertibrates should be included in the abyss biome ex/ giant squid.

We're going to have to work a lot on how to implement transcendant niches.

Behold... My homework. Because you either get biomes when I have nothing else to do (or don't feel like doing it) or when my major is actually helpful.

Dry Mesic Prairie
occurs: In temperate regions, where the land is flat and the precipitation is variable, but not extensive.
resources: fertile soil. (easily eroded should it be left uncovered...)
elevation: Estimate: Sea level on up to about 1,000 feet.
climate: temperate. Sorry, but there's a huge range. The moderate to dry rainfall is more important to this bugger than the actual temperature. About 51 cm of rain/year is average for a prairie, so dry mesic is going to be slightly below that.
topography: pretty darn flat. Dips and grooves will be scoured out of it in places, but often those areas won't actually have prairie in them. Gentle rolls are about the best you're going to get.
biodiversity: Stage 2 - mostly the same kinds of plants, but a lot of them. Biomass, however, is pretty high.
autotroph niches: up to midsize (there will be some tree equivalents hanging out...)
heterotroph niches: herbivore - up to midsize, carnivore - up to small
other: intermittent fires are necessary to keep it from becoming a shrubby forest. Those midsize herbivores also need to graze it. Plant density is at pretty darn close to maximum - you're not getting much uncovered ground here.
Sucession Stage: 2

By the way: Some good altitude maps (and other random maps) are here, while I have some climate maps to help out.
This site and this one are horribly simplified, but useful for having a look at our simplified list of biomes and how they correspond generally to the other maps.

I'm adding that biome, and also putting up a precipitation variable in the form. I'll add it to anything already posted.

Calli is getting her belgium kicked by the approach of finals. I will come back with some thoughts on biome resilience and the science of natural and artificial disasters. (Natural = earthquake, etc, artificial = oil spill, etc.)
Have a Biome before I go:

Seagrass Flats
occurs: In waters that have sunlight, good water clarity, and some protection from turbulence.
resources: sunlight. Herbaceous biomass.
elevation: Sunlight dependent, but from about mean sea level to 60 m deep. (I don't anticipate changing this - turbidity is not going to change so drastically from plantet to planet, because it's not dependent on atmosphere or planet size. Well... gravity... and water density...)
climate: Pretty much anywhere underwater, protected from water turbulence and disturbance.
topography: pretty darn flat. Ripple patterns and some slightly deeper cuts.
biodiversity: Plant biodiversity is even less than in terrestrial prairies.
autotroph niches: Up to small. Yeah, potentially large plants here.
heterotroph niches: Native life, herbivorous and carnivorous, up to tiny, edging towards the lower end of the large category. Drifters may be up to small (turtles, sharks, large fish...)
other: Fish and invertebrate nursery resource. Dang. We need to find a way of tagging organisms raised in one environment that live in other environments... Biome will change wave speed - reducing wave size, speed, and erosion of associated coast.
Sucession stage: 2. They're an aquatic prairie.

I feel like I should either take some refresher physics or find us a physicist...

PS. scio, I think we need an alpine category in our list of biomes, rather than just breaking up the alpine group and shoving them in with other groups. Alpine meadows are similar to prairies... but not to plains. Not really.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

I feel like I should either take some refresher physics or find us a physicist...

PS. scio, I think we need an alpine category in our list of biomes, rather than just breaking up the alpine group and shoving them in with other groups. Alpine meadows are similar to prairies... but not to plains. Not really.

Nice Biome, sounds epic

I am doing pre-uni physics at the moment, what kind of assistance do you need?

Pezz - I need to know what effect increased gravity (Say, 2x earth gravity) would have on the turbidity of water (would the water be more viscous? would suspended particles find it harder to remain suspended? would tides be stronger in force?)
I also need a crash course in lightwaves and color, and how much heat is in each area of the spectrum... Wiki's not cutting it for me. It's in the long-dormant chlorophyll thread, which stalled because I'd taken the chem and bio, but not the physics...

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Pezz - I need to know what effect increased gravity (Say, 2x earth gravity) would have on the turbidity of water (would the water be more viscous? would suspended particles find it harder to remain suspended? would tides be stronger in force?)
I also need a crash course in lightwaves and color, and how much heat is in each area of the spectrum... Wiki's not cutting it for me. It's in the long-dormant chlorophyll thread, which stalled because I'd taken the chem and bio, but not the physics...

EEEH can't say my level of study does anything with fluid dynamics. Perhaps we need a more qualified physicist!

Viscosity is a liquid's resistance to flow. So... How do you need that to make a biome?

I need it for adjusting depth in proportion to sunlight. More turbidity = less clear fluid, which shortens the range for all aquatic plants. Dimness or brightness of the star is going to be relatively easy after that.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

I need it for adjusting depth in proportion to sunlight. More turbidity = less clear fluid, which shortens the range for all aquatic plants. Dimness or brightness of the star is going to be relatively easy after that.

Well, I know that the viscosity of magma is determined by its temperature, density (Determined by temperature), and silica content... So maybe the viscosity of water is determined by its temperature, density(Determined by temperature and NOT gravity, gravity can't pull particles together, as far as I'm aware), and composition?


... What is 'turbidity?'

Turbidity: the measure of the clarity of a liquid, or the measure of how opaque it is, conversely. In water, usually determined by how long non-soluble particles remain in suspension: In other words, how much junk is in it and how long said junk can sort-of-float without settling down to the bottom.
You measure it by taking a tube of water and raising or lowering an object in it until you can see said object clearly. (This leads to no one wanting to be lab partners with the kid who forgot their contacts.)

Hmm... Viscosity of water is going to be affected by what kind of junk is in it, but it's more than just that. Temperature I doubt is going to have an effect on it save that hotter water holds more solute, and at some pont, it will evaporate or freeze. I need a crash course in thermodynamics.

I need to know about the gravity because in your regular "how long does it take things to sink to the bottom" viscosity test, it's gravity doing the work of pulling it counter to the viscosity of the liquid. I would imagine that things might settle faster in higher gravity, because more force pulling downwards means more acceleration, but I skipped my Junior physics and took Human Anatomy and Geography instead. My knowlege is coming from pre-physics and the internet.

Turbidity will be determined at the same time, then.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Temperature I doubt is going to have an effect on it save that hotter water holds more solute, and at some pont, it will evaporate or freeze.

Temperature DOES matter, in fact. The hotter the atoms the more they move around and therefore the more they spread out, and the less dense the liquid is. The less dense it is, the more easily it flows.

So there are a lot of things that affect viscosity...

Oh, and gravity probably affects the settling of liquids a lot less than viscosity does...

You know that though.

I have an idea for a biome, but I'm not sure what some of the things are and the old template is still up and the new one isn't...

Dudeman wrote:

Turbidity will be determined at the same time, then.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Temperature I doubt is going to have an effect on it save that hotter water holds more solute, and at some pont, it will evaporate or freeze.

Temperature DOES matter, in fact. The hotter the atoms the more they move around and therefore the more they spread out, and the less dense the liquid is. The less dense it is, the more easily it flows.

I have an idea for a biome, but I'm not sure what some of the things are and the old template is still up and the new one isn't...

Surface tension adds another wrench in the works - water's surface tension and polarity is unique (reason 3 why water is necessary for LAWK) but the range between 0 and 100 celsius does not affect water density to the point where water density can't be used as a really good constant. Once you get a group of molecules large enough to be visible to the eye, they will float or sink, and it doesn't matter much if they're in near freezing water or near boiling water. The density is affected, it's just not enough to make it game-changing. Temperature's going to be a lot bigger of a deal for solutes, and less big of a deal for individual H2O's smacking harder against a piece of driftwood.

I'm not sure what the new biome template would be. Scio's having me have a look at the sucession and assign it a stage, or doing it himself, so if that's what you're worried about, don't bother worrying. I'm still using that template, just adding the new stuff in.

BTW guys, excellent rule of thumb chart.

Labarynth
occurs: Around lava-erupting volcanoes, made up of many lava tubes
resources: Rich soil
elevation: any
climate: any precipitation, any temperature.
topography: made up of previous lava fields and lava tubes
biodiversity: 2?
autotroph niches: tiny to midsize
heterotroph niches: tiny to midsize all
other: These lava fields and lava tubes are difficult to navigate. Sharp rocks punish any misstep, and many scavengers live here.