• Robert G. Bailey


Beginning with the Resources Planning Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–378), several pieces of legislation require federal land-management agencies to inventory the renewable resources of the nation. Data from the inventory must accurately describe the current conditions, present and potential production levels, and current and prospective use of the individual resources. Data collected in the inventory provide estimates of such information as volume of timber, pounds of available forage, plant species composition, soil depth, wildlife and fish habitat characteristics, land ownership, and land descriptors, such as slope, aspect, and topography. The information that describes current condition and productive potential of each resource is needed to evaluate alternative management strategies with respect to cost, returns, and changes in production.


Land Unit Ecological Unit Ecological Land Alternative Management Strategy Spatial Hierarchy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen, T.F.H.; Starr, T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspective for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 310p.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R.G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environmental Management. 7: 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, R.G. 1985. The factor of scale in ecosystem mapping. Environmental Management. 9: 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, R.G.; Pfister, R.D.; Henderson, J.A. 1978. Nature of land and resource classification: a review. Journal of Forestry. 76: 650–655.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, L.S. 1947. Geograficheskiye zony Sovetskogo Soyuza (geographical zones of the Soviet Union). vol. 1, 3rd ed. Moscow: Geografgiz.Google Scholar
  6. Berghaus, H. 1845. Physikalischer Atlas. Gotha, Germany: Justus Perthes Verlag. vol. 1.Google Scholar
  7. Biasutti, R. 1962. Il paesaggio terrestre. 2d ed. Torino: Unione Tipografico. 586p.Google Scholar
  8. Bourne, R. 1931. Regional survey and its relation to stocktaking of the agricultural and forest resources of the British Empire. Oxford Forestry Memoirs 13. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 169p.Google Scholar
  9. Christian, C.S.; Stewart, G.A. 1968. Methodology of integrated surveys. In: Aerial surveys and integrated studies. Proceedings Toulouse Conference 1964. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 233–280.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, W.M. 1899. The geographical cycle. Geographical Journal. 14: 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dokuchaev, V.V. 1899. On the theory of natural zones. Sochineniya (collected works). vol. 6. Moscow-Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1951.Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll, R.S.; Merkel, D.L.; Radloff, D.L.; Snyder, D.E.; Hagihara, J.S. 1984. An ecological land classification framework for the United States. Misc. Publ. 1439. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 56p.Google Scholar
  13. Dryer, C.R. 1919. Genetic geography: the development of the geographic sense and concept. Annals Association of American Geographers. 10: 3–16.Google Scholar
  14. Forman, R.T.T.; Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley. 619p.Google Scholar
  15. Herbertson, A.J. 1905. The major natural regions: an essay in systematic geography. Geography Journal. 25: 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huggett, R.J. 1995. Geoecology: an evolutionary approach. London: Routledge. 320p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Isachenko, A.G. 1973. Principles of landscape science and physical-geographic regionalization (trans. from Russian by R.J. Zatorski, edited by J.S. Massey). Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Melbourne University Press. 311p.Google Scholar
  18. James, P.E. 1959. A geography of man. 2nd ed. Boston: Ginn. 656p.Google Scholar
  19. Kalesnik, S.V. 1962. Landscape science. In: C.D. Harris (ed.). Soviet geography, accomplishments and tasks. Am. Geog. Soc. Occasional Publ. No. 1. New York: American Geographical Society. pp. 201–204.Google Scholar
  20. Klijn, F.; Udo de Haes, H.A. 1994. A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its applications for ecological land classification. Landscape Ecology. 9: 89–104.Google Scholar
  21. Küchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. Spec. Publ. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 116p. with separate map at 1:3,168,000.Google Scholar
  22. Leser, H. 1976. Landschaftsökologie. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer. 432p.Google Scholar
  23. Meentemeyer, V.; Box, E.O. 1987. Scale effects in landscape studies. In: M.G. Turner (ed.). Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. Ecological studies. vol. 64. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mil’kov, F.N. 1979. The contrastivity principle in landscape geography. Soviet Geography. 20: 31–40.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, D.H. 1978. The factor of scale: ecosystem, landscape mosaic, and region. In: K.A. Hammond, G. Macinko, and W.B. Fairchild (eds.). Sourcebook on the environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 63–88.Google Scholar
  26. Neff, E. 1967. Die theoretischen grundlagen der landschaftslehre. Gotha. 152S.Google Scholar
  27. Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. 574p.Google Scholar
  28. Odum, E.P. 1977. The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline. Science. 195: 1289–1293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Neill, R.V.; DeAngelis, D.L.; Waide, J.B.; Allen, T.F.H. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 253p.Google Scholar
  30. Orme, A.T.; Bailey, R.G. 1971. Vegetation and channel geometry in Monroe Canyon, southern California. Yearbook of the Association Pacific Coast Geographers. 33: 65–82.Google Scholar
  31. Passarge, S. 1929. Die Landschaftsgürtel der Erde, Natur und Kultur. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt. 144p.Google Scholar
  32. Rowe, J.S. 1961. The level-of-integration concept and ecology. Ecology. 42: 420–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rowe, J.S. 1979. Revised working paper on methodology/philosophy of ecological land classification in Canada. In: C.D.A. Rubec (ed.). Applications of ecological (biophysical) land classification in Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 7. Ottawa: Environment Canada. pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
  34. Rowe, J.S. 1980. The common denominator in land classification in Canada: an ecological approach to mapping. Forestry Chronicle. 56: 19–20.Google Scholar
  35. Rowe, J.S.; Sheard, J.W. 1981. Ecological land classification: a survey approach. Environmental Management. 5: 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sauer, C.O. 1925. The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography. 2: 19–53.Google Scholar
  37. Schultz, A.M. 1967. The ecosystem as a conceptual tool in the management of natural resources. In: S.V.C. Wantrup and J.S. Parsons (eds.). Natural resources: quality and quantity. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 139–161.Google Scholar
  38. Sokal, R.R. 1974. Classification: purposes, principles, progress, prospects. Science. 185: 1115–1123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strahler, A.N. 1965. Introduction to physical geography. New York: John Wiley. 455p.Google Scholar
  40. Strahler, A.N.; Strahler, A.H. 1976. Elements of physical geography. New York: John Wiley. 469p.Google Scholar
  41. Sukachev, V.; Dylis, N. 1964. Fundamentals of forest biogeocoenology (trans. from Russian by J.M. Maclennan). London: Oliver & Bond. 672p.Google Scholar
  42. Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and misuse of vegetation terms and concepts. Ecology. 16: 284–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Troll, C. 1971. Landscape ecology (geoecology) and biogeocenology—a terminology study. Geoforum. 8: 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Ecosystem management: additional actions needed to adequately test a promising approach. GAO/RCED-94–111 Ecosystem Management. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 87p.Google Scholar
  45. Van Dyne, G.M. (ed.). 1969. The ecosystem concept in natural resource management. New York: Academic Press. 383p.Google Scholar
  46. Walter, H.; Box, E. 1976. Global classification of natural terrestrial ecosystems. Vegetatio. 32: 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Warren, C.E. 1979. Toward classification and rationale for watershed management and stream protection. EPA-600/3–79–059. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 142p.Google Scholar
  48. Webster, J.S. 1979. Hierarchical organization of ecosystems. In: E. Halfon (ed.). Theoretical systems ecology. New York: Academic Press. pp. 119–129.Google Scholar
  49. Wertz, W.A.; Arnold, J.F. 1972. Land systems inventory. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 12p.Google Scholar
  50. Wiken, E.B.; Ironside, G. 1977. The development of ecological (biophysical) land classification in Canada. Landscape Planning. 4: 273–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations