Advertisement

Applications of Ecosystem Geography

  • Robert G. Bailey
Chapter

Abstract

Ecosytems come in many scales or relative sizes. As I have said, because of the links between systems, a modification of one system may affect the operation of surrounding systems. Furthermore, how a system will respond to management is partially determined by relationships with surrounding systems. Multiscale analysis of ecosystems pertains to all kinds of land. Many planning issues transcend ownership and administrative boundaries. To address these issues, the planner must consider how related ecosystems are linked to form larger systems. For this analysis to be effective, it must be conducted regardless of ownership or administrative boundaries. This is because we can only understand ecosystems, as spatial systems, by looking at the whole—not just certain parts. Note that this refers to analysis only, not to government’s making management decisions about private land or vice versa.

Keywords

Landscape Mosaic Long Term Ecological Research Functional Inventory Ecosystem Pattern Rocky Mountain Research Station 
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.

References

  1. Alston, R.M. 1987. Inventorying and monitoring endangered forests: a critical report on the 1985 IUFRO Conference. Journal of Environmental Management. 25: 181–189.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, M.E. 1965. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Agric. Handbook 296. Washington, DC: USDA Soil Conservation Service. 82p. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, R.G. 1984. Testing an ecosystem regionalization. Journal of Environmental Management. 19: 239–248.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, R.G. 1988a. Ecogeographic analysis: a guide to the ecological division of land for resource management. Misc. Publ. No. 1465. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 16p.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, R.G. 1988b. Problems with using overlay mapping for planning and their implications for geographic information systems. Environmental Management. 12: 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, R.G. 1989. Explanatory supplement to ecoregions map of the continents. Environmental Conservation. 16: 307–309, with separate map at 1:30,000,000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, R.G. 1991. Design of ecological networks for monitoring global change. Environmental Conservation. 18: 173–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. rev. and expanded (1st ed. 1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (rev.). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 108p. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.Google Scholar
  9. Bailey, R.G. 2002. Ecoregion-based design for sustainability. New York: Springer. 222p.Google Scholar
  10. Barnes, B.V. 1984. Forest ecosystem classification and mapping in Baden-Württemberg, West Germany. In: J.G. Bockheim (ed.). Proceedings, forest land classification: experiences, problems, perspectives. March 18–20, 1984. Madison, Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin. pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
  11. Barnett, D.L.; Browning, W.D. [illustrations by J.L. Uncapher] 1995. A primer on sustainable building. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute. 135p.Google Scholar
  12. Bashkin, V.N.; Bailey, R.G. 1993. Revision of map of ecoregions of the world (1992–95). Environmental Conservation. 20: 75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breymeyer, A.I. 1981. Monitoring of the functioning of ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1: 175–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks, J.R.; Wiant, H.V. 2007. Ecoregion-based local volume equations for Appalachian hardwoods. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 25(2): 87–92.Google Scholar
  15. Burger, D. 1976. The concept of ecosystem region in forest site classification. In: Proceedings, International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), XVI world congress, division I; 20 June–2 July 1976; Oslo, Norway. Oslo, Norway: IUFRO. pp. 213–218.Google Scholar
  16. Cathey, H.M. 1990. USDA plant hardiness zone map. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Misc. Pub. No. 1475.Google Scholar
  17. Dramstad, W.E.; Olson, J.D.; Forman, R.T.T. 1996. Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Washington, DC: Island Press. 80p.Google Scholar
  18. Fenneman, N.M. 1928. Physiographic divisions of the United States. Annals Association of American Geographers. 18: 261–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franklin, J. 1998. Predicting the distribution of shrub species in California chaparral and coastal sage communities from climate and terrain-derived variables. Journal Vegetation Science. 9: 733–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frissell, C.A.; Liss, W.J.; Warren, C.E.; Hurley, M.C. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management. 10: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallant, A.L.; Klaver, R.W.; Casper, G.S.; Lannoo, M.J. 2007. Global rates of habitat loss and implications for amphibian conservation. Copeia. 4: 967–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gersmehl, P.; Napton, D.; Luther, J. 1982. The spatial transferability of resource interpretations. In: T.B. Braun (ed.). Proceedings, national in-place resource inventories workshop, August 9–14, 1981. University of Maine, Orono. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. pp. 402–405.Google Scholar
  23. Greer, K.; Meneghin, B. 2000. Spectrum: an analytical tool for building natural resource management models. In: J.M. Vasievich, J.S. Fried, and L.A. Leefers (eds.). Seventh symposium on systems analysis in forest resources; 1997 May 28–31; Traverse City, MI. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-205. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 470p.Google Scholar
  24. Günther, M. 1955. Untersuchungen über das Ertragsvermögen der Hauptholzarten im Bereich verschiedener des württembergischen Neckarlandes. Mitt. Vereins f. forstl. Standortsk. u. Forstpflz. 4: 5–31.Google Scholar
  25. Hanowski, J.; Danz, N.; Howe, R.; Niemi, G.; Regal, R. 2007. Consideration of geography and wetland geomorphic type in the development of Great Lakes coastal wetland bird indicators. EcoHealth. 4: 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansen, M. 2002. Volume and biomass estimation in FIA: national consistency vs. regional accuracy In: R.E. McRoberts, G.A. Reams, P.C. Van Deusen, and J.W. Moser (eds.). Proceedings of the third annual forest inventory and analysis symposium; Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-230. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. pp. 109–120.Google Scholar
  27. Harding, J.S.; Winterbourn, M.J. 1997. An ecoregion classification of the South Island, New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management. 51: 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harding, J.S.; Winterbourn, M.J.; McDiffett, W.F. 1997. Stream fauna and ecoregions in South Island, New Zealand: do they correspond? Archiv für Hydrobiologie. 140(3): 289–307.Google Scholar
  29. Heino, J.; Muotka, T.; Paavola, R.; Hämäläinen, H.; Koskenniemi, E. 2002. Correspondence between regional delineations and spatial patterns in macroinvertebrate assemblages of boreal headwater streams. Journal North American Bentological Society. 21: 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hills, G.A. 1960b. Comparison of forest ecosystems (vegetation and soil) in different climatic zones. Silva Fennica. 105: 33–39.Google Scholar
  31. Hole, F.D. 1978. An approach to landscape analysis with emphasis on soils. Geoderma. 21: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horton, R.E. 1967. Soil survey of Scotland County, North Carolina, USA. Washington, DC: USDA Soil Conservation Service. 70p. with 45 photomaps.Google Scholar
  33. Huang, S.; Prince, C.; Titus, S.J. 2000. Development of ecoregion-based height-diameter models for white spruce in boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 129: 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 996p.Google Scholar
  35. Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M. 2001. Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosystems. 4: 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, K.N.; Stuart, T.W.; Crim, S.A. 1986. Forplan version 2: an overview. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Land Management Planning Staff. Irregular pagination.Google Scholar
  37. Knight, D.H.; Reiners, W.A. 2000. Natural patterns in southern Rocky Mountain landscapes and their relevance to forest management. In: D.H. Knight, F.W. Smith, S.W. Buskirk, W.H. Romme, and W.L. Baker (eds.). Forest fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
  38. Laut, P.; Paine, T.A. 1982. A step towards an objective procedure for land classification and mapping. Applied Geography. 2: 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lightfoot, D.C.; Brantley, S.L.; Allen, C.D. 2008. Geographic patterns of ground-dwelling arthropods across an ecoregional transition in the North American Southwest. Western North American Naturalist. 68: 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindsay, S.W.; Bayoh, M.N. 2004. Mapping members of the Anopheles gambiae complex using climate data. Physiological Entomology. 29: 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S.L.; Dodson, R.; Smith, T.S.; Shugart, H.H. 2006. Long-term research at the USDA forest service’s experimental forests and ranges. Bioscience. 56(1): 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malamud, B.D.; Millington, J.D.A.; Perry, G.W. 2005. Characterizing wildfire regimes in the United States. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences. 102: 4694–4699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marston, R.A. 2006. President’s column: Ecoregions: a geographic advantage in studying environmental change. Association of American Geographers Newsletter. 41(3): 3–4.Google Scholar
  44. Mather, J.R.; Sdasyuk, G.V. (eds.). 1991. Global change: geographical approaches. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 289p.Google Scholar
  45. McCreadie, J.W.; Adler, P.H. 2006. Ecoregions as predictors of lotic assemblages of blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae). Ecography. 29: 603–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McRoberts, R.E.; Nelson, M.D.; Wendt, D.G. 2002. Stratified estimation of forest area using satellite imagery, inventory data, and the k-Nearest Neighbors technique. Remote Sensing of Environment. 82: 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, J.R.; Turner, M.G.; Smithwich, E.A.H.; Dent, C.L.; Stanley, E.H. 2004. Spatial extrapolation: the science of predicting ecological patterns and processes. BioScience. 54(4): 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Neilson, R.P. 1995. A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and water balance. Ecological Applications. 5: 362–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Brien, R.A. 1996. Forest resources of northern Utah ecoregions. Resource Bulletin INT-RB-87. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 43p.Google Scholar
  50. Odom, R.H.; McNab, W.H. 2000. Using digital terrain modeling to predict ecological types in the Balsam Mountain of western North Carolina. Research Note SRS-8. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 11p.Google Scholar
  51. Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement). Annals Association of American Geographers. 77: 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peet, R.K. 1988. Forests of the Rocky Mountains. In: M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings (eds.). North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 63–102.Google Scholar
  53. Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes. University of Kansas Publication Museum of Natural History 20: 225–570.Google Scholar
  54. Rabeni, C.F.; Doisy, K.E. 2000. Correspondence of stream bentic invertebrate assemblages to regional classification schemes in Missouri. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 19: 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Radloff, D.L.; Betters, D.R. 1978. Multivariate analysis of physical site data for wildland classification. Forest Science. 24: 2–10.Google Scholar
  56. Risser, P.G. 1993. Ecotones at local to regional scales from around the world. Ecological Applications. 3: 367–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robertson, J.K.; Wilson, J.W. 1985. Design of the national trends network for monitoring the chemistry of atmospheric precipitation. Circular 964. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 46p.Google Scholar
  58. Rudis, V.A. 1998. Regional forest resource assessment in an ecological framework: The Southern United States. Natural Areas Journal. 18: 319–332.Google Scholar
  59. Rudis, V.A. 1999. Ecological subregion codes by county, coterminous United States. General Technical Report SRS-36. Asheville, NC:USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 95p.Google Scholar
  60. Schwartz, M.K.; Mukksm, L.S.; Ortega, Y.; Ruggiero, L.F.; Allendorf, F.W. 2003. Landscape location affects genetic variation of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Molecular Ecology. 12: 1807–1816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Silbernagel, J. 2005. Bio-regional patterns and spatial narratives for integrative landscape research and design.In: B. Tress, G. Tres, G. Fry, and P. Opdam (eds.). From Landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education, and application. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, vol. 12. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Snelder, T.H.; Biggs, B.J.F.; Woods, R.A. 2005. Improved eco-hydrological classification of rivers. River Research and Applications. 21: 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, J.F.; Sedell, J.R. 1991. Landscape patterns, disturbance, and management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. In: I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman (eds.). Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 191–213.Google Scholar
  64. Szekely, A. 1992. Establishing a region for ecological cooperation in North America. Natural Resources Journal. 32: 563–622.Google Scholar
  65. Thayer, R.L. 2003. LifePlace: bioregional thought and practice. Berkeley: University of California Press. 300p.Google Scholar
  66. Van der Ryn, S.; Cowan, S. 1996. Ecological design. Washington, DC: Island Press. 201p.Google Scholar
  67. Vaughan, T.A.; Ryan, J.M.; Czaplewski, N.J. 2000. Mammalogy. 4th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 565p.Google Scholar
  68. Vogel, K.P.; Schmer, M.R.; Mitchell, R.B. 2005. Plant adaptation regions: ecological and climatic classification of plant materials. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 58: 351–319.Google Scholar
  69. Walter, H.; Harnickell, E.; Mueller-Dombois, D. 1975. Climate-diagram maps of the individual continents and the ecological climatic regions of the earth. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 36p. with 9 maps.Google Scholar
  70. Whittaker, R.H.; Niering, W.A. 1965. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology. 46: 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Woodward, J. 2000 Waterstained landscapes: seeing and shaping regionally distinctive places. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 221p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations