The Question of Boundary Criteria



Two fundamental questions facing all ecosystem mappers are the following: (1) What factors are of particular importance in the recognition of ecosystems? (2) How are the boundaries of the different sizes of systems to be determined?


Great Plain Rocky Mountain Prairie Pothole Region Multivariate Cluster Southern Great Plain 


  1. Atwood, W.W. 1940. The physiographic provinces of North America. Boston: Ginn. 536p.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bowman, I. 1911. Forest physiography, physiography of the U.S. and principal soils in relation to forestry. New York: John Wiley. 759p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Fenneman, N.M. 1928. Physiographic divisions of the United States. Annals Association of American Geographers. 18: 261–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Funk, J.L. 1970. Warm-water streams. In: N.G. Benson (ed.). A century of fisheries in North America. Washington, DC: American Fisheries Society. pp. 141–152.Google Scholar
  7. Gersmehl, P.J. 1980. Productivity ratings based on soil series: a methodology critique. Professional Geographer. 32: 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hopkins, L.D. 1977. Methods for generating land suitability maps: a comparative evaluation. Journal American Institute of Planners. 43: 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Illies, J. 1974. Introduction to zoogeography (trans. from German by W.D. Williams). London: Macmillan Press. 120p.Google Scholar
  10. Joerg, W.L.G. 1914. The subdivision of North America into natural regions: a preliminary inquiry. Annals Association of American Geographers. 4: 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis, G.M. 1966. Regional ideas and reality in the Cis-Rocky Mountain west. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 38: 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lowell, K.E. 1990. Differences between ecological land type maps produced using GIS or manual cartographic methods. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 56: 169–173.Google Scholar
  13. Moss, M.R. 1985. Land processes and land classification. Journal of Environmental Management. 20: 295–319.Google Scholar
  14. Omernik, J.M.; Griffith, G.E. 1991. Ecological regions versus hydrologic units: frameworks for managing water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 46: 334–340.Google Scholar
  15. Omi, P.N.; Wensel, L.C.; Murphy, J.L. 1979. An application of multivariate statistics to land-use planning: classifying land units into homogeneous zones. Forest Science. 25: 399–414.Google Scholar
  16. Robinove, C.J. 1979. Integrated terrain mapping with digital Landsat images in Queensland, Australia. Prof. Paper 1102. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 39p.Google Scholar
  17. Rowe, J.S. 1980. The common denominator in land classification in Canada: an ecological approach to mapping. Forestry Chronicle. 56: 19–20.Google Scholar
  18. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil taxonomy: a basic system for making and interpreting soil surveys. Agric. Handbook 436. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 754p.Google Scholar
  19. Walter, H.; Breckle, S.-W. 1985. Ecological Systems of the geobiosphere, vol. 1, Ecological principles in global perspective (trans. from German by S. Gruber). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 242p.Google Scholar
  20. Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, impact assessment, and environmental planning. New York: John Wiley. 532p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations