Various facets of global changes and related problems and challenges are asking for sound impact assessments and corresponding coping strategies. The human impact on nature is a major driver of biodiversity loss and restricted ecosystem functioning and services. Assessing such global changes is often done by using biomes as benchmarks. However, even if the wording and terminology seem common sense (‘tropical rain forest’, ‘steppe’, ‘boreal forest’) global biome units and maps deviate in many ways. This is well justified by their individual intention, expert opinions, disciplinary background, and methodology of creation. A closer look reveals linkages between spatial accordance and common origin in climate classifications and maps. Their original influence, however, is rarely evident. In consequence, it is difficult if not impossible for users to realize and understand differences in these global maps. Furthermore, it is difficult to accept the fact that there is no common standard for global biomes. Even more surprising is the fact that some approaches are uncritically taken for common sense and are perpetuated over decades. This study aims to review established global biome concepts. Regions that are consistently assigned to comparable types of biomes shall be detected and also regions where ambiguity exists. For this purpose, we shortly review the history of existing concepts and the generic relations between them. Biomes, ecozones and climate classifications are considered. We digitized the most prominent biome classifications. Spatial match and mismatch between concepts were analyzed globally. We detect areas of spatial agreement and regions with ambiguous classifications. A clustering approach including 287 individual biomes originating from 12 established global biome concepts and their classifications/units revealed 12 terrestrial biome clusters among which 8 can be assigned to terrestrial ecological units. One cluster on ice caps adds to this. And finally, 3 clusters represent rather transition zones (ecotones), high mountain plateaus or are of minor areal extent. The spatial arrangement of these emerging clusters is displayed on a global map. Additionally, regions of uncertainty related to class assignment were identified. Those primarily occur in the vicinity of mountainous regions. The findings of this study should be seen as a work in progress and as a basis for further optimization of global biome concepts.

中文翻译：

---

全球生物群落和生态区——概念和空间社区和差异

全球变化的各个方面以及相关的问题和挑战都要求进行合理的影响评估和相应的应对策略。人类对自然的影响是生物多样性丧失和生态系统功能和服务受限的主要驱动因素。评估此类全球变化通常通过使用生物群落作为基准来完成。然而，即使措辞和术语似乎是常识（“热带雨林”、“草原”、“北方森林”），全球生物群落单元和地图在许多方面都存在偏差。他们的个人意图、专家意见、学科背景和创作方法很好地证明了这一点。仔细观察揭示了气候分类和地图中空间一致性和共同起源之间的联系。然而，它们最初的影响却鲜为人知。结果，用户很难甚至不可能意识到和理解这些全球地图中的差异。此外，很难接受全球生物群落没有共同标准的事实。更令人惊讶的是，有些方法不加批判地被视为常识，并且持续了数十年。本研究旨在回顾已建立的全球生物群落概念。应检测始终分配给可比较类型的生物群落的区域以及存在歧义的区域。为此，我们简要回顾现有概念的历史以及它们之间的一般关系。考虑了生物群落、生态区和气候分类。我们将最突出的生物群落分类数字化。对概念之间的空间匹配和不匹配进行了全局分析。我们检测空间一致的区域和分类不明确的区域。包括源自 12 个已建立的全球生物群落概念及其分类/单元的 287 个个体生物群落的聚类方法揭示了 12 个陆地生物群落簇，其中 8 个可以分配给陆地生态单元。冰盖上的一个簇增加了这一点。最后，3 个集群代表相当过渡带（生态带）、高山高原或较小的区域范围。这些新兴集群的空间排列显示在全球地图上。此外，还确定了与班级分配相关的不确定区域。这些主要发生在山区附近。这项研究的结果应被视为一项正在进行的工作，并作为进一步优化全球生物群落概念的基础。