Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Elements of Ecological Land Classifications for Ecological Assessments

  • Chapter
A Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments

Abstract

An ecological land classification (ELC) is the product of the formal definition of land-based ecosystems and ecosystem complexes (Rowe and Sheard, 1981; Sims et al., 1996), based on the ecological and mapping principles of ecosystem characterization (see Chapters 2 and 3). In addition to the specific requirements of ecosystem characterization (see Chapter 3), constructing an ELC requires making decisions about the classification concepts to follow and the specific uses of the ELC (Grossman et al., 1999). In practice, the classification process is a balance between science and art (Sims et al., 1996).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Albert, D. A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. Fourth revision.GTR-NC-178. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., North Central For. Exp. Sta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R.; Hardy, E. E.; Roach, J. T. 1976. Land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensing data.Geological Survey Professional Pap. 964 (a revision of the land use classification system as presented in U.S. Geological Circular 671). Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Off.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arno, S. F.; Simmermann, D. G.; Keane, R. E. 1986. Characterizing succession within a forest habitat type—an approach designed for resource managers. Research Note INT-357. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Intermountain Res. Sta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M. P. 1985. Continuum concept, ordination methods and niche theory. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.16:39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M. P.; Smith, T. M. 1989. A new model for the continuum concept. Vegetatio83:35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M. P.; Yapp, G. A. 1978. Definition of rainfall regions of southeastern Australia by numerical classification methods. Archiv fur Meterologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie, Series B26:121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M. P.; Cunningham, R. B.; Fleming, P. M. 1984. New approaches to direct gradient analysis using environmental scalers and statistical curve fitting procedures. Vegetatio55:11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States.Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Intermountain Region. Scale 1: 7,500,000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States.Misc. Publ. 1391. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G.; Jensen, M. E.; Cleland, D. T.; Bourgeron, P. S. 1994. Design and use of ecological mapping units. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., eds. Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banner, A.; Meidinger, D. V.; Lea, E. C.; Maxwell, R. E.; Von Sacken, B. C. 1996. Ecosystem mapping methods for British Columbia. In: Sims, R. A.; Corns, I. G. W.; Klinka, K., eds. Global to local: ecological land classification.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 97–117.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchesne, P.; Ducruc, J.-P.; Gerardin, V. 1996. Ecological mapping: a framework for delimiting forest management units. Environ. Monit. Assess.39:173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, G.; Bergstrom, J.; Teasley, R. J.; Bowker, J. M.; Cordell, H. K. 1998. An ecoregional approach to the economic valuation of land-and water-based recreation in the United States. Environ. Manage.22:69–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeron, P. S.; Jensen, M. E. 1994. An overview of ecological principles for ecosystem management. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., eds. Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 45–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeron, P. S.; Humphries, H. C.; Jensen, M. E. 1994. Landscape characterization: a framework for ecological assessment at regional and local scales. J. Sustain. For. 2(3–4):267–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeron, P. S.; Engelking, L. D.; Humphries, H. C.; Muldavin, E.; Moir, W. H. 1995. Assessing the conservation value of the Gray Ranch: rarity, diversity and representativeness. Desert Plants11:1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeron, P. S.; Humphries, H. C.; Barber, J. A.; Turner, S. J.; Jensen, M. E.; Goodman, I. A. 1999. Impact of broad-and fine-scale patterns on regional landscape characterization using AVHRR-derived land cover data. Ecosystem Health5:234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, J. M.; English, D. B. K.; Donovan, J. A. 1996. Toward a value for guided rafting on southern rivers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 28:423–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun-Blanquet, J. 1965. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities (Pflanzensoziologie). New York: Hafner Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E.; Lowe, C. H.; Pase, C. P. 1979. A digitized classification system for the biotic communities of North America, with community (series) and association examples for the Southwest. J. ArizonaNevada Acad. Sci.14(Suppl.1):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E.; Reichenbacher, F.; Franson, S. E. 1998. A classification of North American biotic communities. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. 152 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. H. 1984. On the relationship between the abundance and distribution of species. Amer. Naturalist 124:255–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, R. G. H.; Barr, C. J.; Clarke, R. T.; Howard, D. C.; Lane, A. M. J. 1996a. Land classification for strategic ecological survey. J. Environ. Manage.47: 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, R. G. H.; Barr, C. J.; Gillespie, M. K.; Howard, D. C. 1996b. The ITE land classification: providing an environmental stratification of Great Britain. Environ. Monit. Assess.39:39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canters, K. J.; den Herder, C. P.; de Veer, A. A.; Veelenturf, P. W. M.; de Waal, R. W. 1991. Landscape-ecological mapping of the Netherlands. Landscape Ecol.5:145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherrill, A.; Lane, M. 1995. The survey and prediction of land cover using an environmental land classification. Appl. Geogr.15(1):69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherrill, A. J.; Lane, A.; Fuller, R. M. 1994. The use of classified Landsat-5 thematic mapper imagery in the characterization of landscape composition: a case study in northern England. J. Environ. Manage.40: 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherrill, A. J.; McClean, C.; Watson, P.; Rushton, S. P.; Sanderson, R. 1995. Predicting the distributions of plant species at the regional scale: a hierarchical matrix model. Landscape Ecol.10:197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian, C. S.; Stewart, G. A. 1968. Methodology of integrated surveys. In: Aerial surveys and integrated studies.Paris: Proc. Toulouse Conf. 1964, UNESCO: 233–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubenmire, R. 1966. Vegetation: identification of typal communities. Science151:291–298.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Delcourt, H. R.; Delcourt, P. A. 1988. Quaternary landscape ecology: relevant scales in space and time. Landscape Ecol.2:45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detenbeck, N. E.; Galatowitsch, S. M.; Atkinson, J.; Ball, H. 1999. Evaluating perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. Wetlands19:789–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVelice, R. L.; Daumiller, G. J.; Bourgeron, P. S.; Jarvie, J. O. 1994. Bioenvironmental representativeness of nature preserves: assessment using a combination of a GIS and a rule-based model. In: Despain, D. G., ed. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR-93/XX: Plants and Their Environments: Proceedings of the First Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,September 16-17, 1991, Yellowstone National Park, WY. Denver, CO: USDI National Park Service: 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dice, L. R. 1943. The biotic provinces of North America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Dept. Agric., For. Serv.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units.Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESWG (Ecological Stratification Working Group). 1995. A national ecological framework for Canada.Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research; and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, (map)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallant, A. L.; Binnian, E. F.; Omernik, J. M.; Shasby, M. B. 1995. Ecoregions of Alaska.U.S. Geological Survey Professional Pap. 1567. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Off.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D. H.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Weakley, A. S.; Anderson, M.; Bourgeron, P.; Crawford, R.; Gooding, K.; Landaal, S.; Metzler, K.; Patterson, K. D.; Pyne, M.; Reid, M.; Sneddon, L. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Volume I. The national vegetation classification standard. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D. H.; Bourgeron, P. S.; Busch, W.-D. N.; Cleland, D.; Platts, W.; Ray, G. C.; Robins, C. R.; Roloff, G. 1999. Principles for ecological classification. In: Johnson, N. C.; Malk, A. J.; Sexton, W. T.; Szaro, R. C, eds. Volume II. Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science: 353–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hann, W. J.; Jones, J. L.; Karl, M. G.; Hessburg, P. F.; Keane, R. E.; Long, D. G.; Menakis, J. P.; McNicol, C. H.; Leonard, S. G.; Gravenmier, R. A.; Smith, B. G. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. In: Quigley, T. M.; Arbelbide, S. J., eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume II.PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 337-1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove, W. W.; Hoffman, F. M. 1999. Using multivariate clustering to characterize ecoregion borders. Comput. Sci. Eng. 1:18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, H. S.; Mladenoff, D. J.; Radeloff, V. C.; Crow, T. R. 1998. Integration of GIS data and classified satellite imagery for regional forest assessment. Ecol. Appl. 8:1072–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdridge, L. R. 1947. Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science105:367–368.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Host, G.; Pastor, J. 1998. Modeling forest succession among ecological land units in northern Minnesota. Conserv. Ecol.2(2): 15 [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/artl5.

  • Host, G. E.; Polzer, P. L.; Mladenoff, M. A.; White, M. A.; Crow, S. J. 1996. A quantitative approach to developing regional ecosystem classifications. Ecol. Appl.6:608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M.; Whittier, T. R.; Rohm, C. M. 1990. A regional framework for establishing recovery criteria. Environ. Manage.14:673–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, G. E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals. Amer. Naturalist 93:145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isachenko, A. G. 1973. Principles of landscape science and physical geographic regionalization.Melbourne: J. S. Massey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev’s electivity index. Oecologia14:413–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. H. 1979. Seasonal and year-to-year differences in food selection by beavers. Oecologia AA:112–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.; Goodman, I.; Brewer, K.; Frost, T.; Ford, G.; Nesser, J. 1997. Biophysical environments of the basin. In: Quigley, T. M.; Arbelbide, S. J., eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume II.PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 99–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, F., editor. 1994. Ecosystem classification for environmental management. Ecology & environment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, F.; Udo de Haes, H. A. 1994. A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification. Landscape Ecol.9(2):89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovalchik, B. L.; Chitwood, L. A. 1990. Use of geomorphology in the classification of riparian plant associations in mountainous landscapes of central Oregon, U.S.A. For. Ecol. Manage.33/34:405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajina, V. J. 1965. Biogeoclimatic zones and classification of British Columbia. In: Krajina, V. J., ed. Ecology of Western North America.Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. Am. Geogr. Soc. Spec. Publ.36:1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küchler, A. W. 1967. Vegetation mapping.New York: Ronald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küchler, A. W. 1973. Problems in classifying and mapping vegetation for ecological regionalization. Ecology 54:512–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küchler, A. W. 1988. The nature of vegetation. In: Küchler, A. W.; Zonneveld, I. S., eds. Vegetation mapping. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 321–329.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Küchler, A. W.; Zonneveld, I. S., editors. 1988. Vegetation mapping.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landres, P. B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F. J. 1999. Evaluating the utility of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecol. Appl.9:1179–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop, R. G.; Peterson, D. L. 1992. Identifying structural self-similarity in mountainous landscapes. Landscape Ecol.6:233–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. C.; Sedell, J. R.; Rieman, B. E.; Thurow, R. F.; Williams, J. E.; Burns, D.; Clayton, J.; Decker, L.; Gresswell, R.; House, R.; Howell, P.; Lee, K. M.; MacDonald, K.; McIntyre, J.; McKinney, S.; Noel, T.; O’Connor, J. E.; Overton, C. K.; Perkinson, D.; Tu, K.; Van Eimeren, P. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. In: Quigley, T. M.; Arbelbide, S. J., eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume III.PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 1057–1496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, R. J. M. 1994. Ecosystem classification by budgets of material; the example of forest ecosystems classified as proton budget types. In: Klijn, F., ed. Ecosystem classification for environmental management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 117–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology73:1942–1968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligon, F. K.; Dietrich, W. E.; Trush, W. J. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams: a geomorphic perspective. BioScience45:183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, B. G.; Nix, H. A.; Hutchinson, M. F.; MacMahon, J. P.; Fleming, P. M. 1988. Assessing representativeness of places for conservation reservation and heritage listing. Environ. Manage.12(4):501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, B. G.; Nix, H. A.; Stein, J. A.; Cork, S. E.; Bullen, F. T. 1989. Assessing the representativeness of the wet tropics of Queensland World Heritage Property. Biol. Conserv.50:279–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, A.; Meidinger, D.; Klinka, K. 1992. Use of the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification system in British Columbia. For. Chron.68:100–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. R.; Edwards, C. J.; Jensen, M. E.; Paustian, S. I; Parrott, H.; Hill, D. M. 1995. A hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological units in North America. NC-176. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., North Central For. Exp. Sta.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, R. P. 1985. The background of ecology: concept and theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, S. P. 1986. Floristic analysis of the southwestern United States. Great Basin Naturalist46: 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, S. P. 1989. Natural floristic areas of the western United States. J. Biogeogr.16:239–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mladenoff, D. J.; Niemi, G. J.; White, M. A. 1997. Effects of changing landscape pattern and U.S.G.S. land cover data variability on ecoregion discrimination across a forest-agriculture gradient. Landscape Ecol. 12:379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P.; Aplet, G. H.; Haufler, J. B.; Humphries, H. C.; Moore, M. M.; Wilson, W. D. 1994. Historical range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. J. Sustain. For.2(3-4):57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nix, H. A. 1982. Environmental determinants and evolution in Terra Australia. In: Barker, W. M.; Greenslade, P. J. M., ed. Evolution of the flora and fauna of Arid Australia.South Australia: Peacock: 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R. F. 1999. Conservation assessments: a synthesis. In: Ricketts, T. H.; Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D. M.; Loucks, C. J.; Eichbaum, W.; DellaSala, D.; Kavanaugh, K.; Hedao, P.; Hurley, P. T.; Carney, K. M.; Abell, R.; Walters, S. Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment.Washington, DC: Island Press: 89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Callaghan, J. R. 1996. Land use: The interaction of economics, ecology and hydrology.London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr.77:118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M. 1995. Ecoregions: A framework for environmental management. In: Davis, W.; Simon, T., eds. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making.Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers: 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palik, B. J.; Goebel, P. C.; Kirkman, L. K.; West, L. 2000. Using landscape hierarchies to guide restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Ecol. Appl.10:189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, J.; Broschart, M. 1990. The spatial pattern of a northern conifer-hardwood landscape. Landscape Ecol.4:55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, J.; Post, W. M. 1986. Influence of climate, soil moisture and succession on forest carbon and nitrogen cycles. Biogeochemistry2:3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perera, A. H.; Baker, J. A.; Band, L. E.; Baldwin, D. J. B. 1996. A strategie framework to ecoregionalize Ontario. In: Sims, R. A.; Corns, I. G. W.; Klinka, K., eds. Global to local ecological land classification.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 85–96.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R. D.; Arno, S. F. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation. For. Sci.26:52–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R. D.; Kovalchik, B. L.; Arno, S. F.; Presby, R. C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana.INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Intermountain For. Range Exp. Sta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S. T. A.; Cadenasso, M. L. 1995. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science269(5222):331–334.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pinay, G.; Fabre, A.; Vervier, P.; Gazelle, F. 1992. Control of C, N, P distribution in soils of riparian forest. Landscape Ecol.6(3):121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pregitzer, K. S.; Barnes, B. V. 1982. The use of ground flora to indicate edaphic factors in upland ecosystems of the McCormick Experimental Forest, Upper Michigan. Can. J. For. Res.12:661–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, T. M.; Arbelbide, S. J., editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume I.PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiners, W. A.; Thurston, R. C. 1997. Delineations of landtype associations for southeast Wyoming.Bureau of Land Management/University of Wyoming, Final Report, Contract K-910-P960124. Laramie, WY: Dept. of Botany, University of Wyoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts, T. H.; Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D. M.; Loucks, C. J.; Eichbaum, W.; DellaSala, D.; Kavanaugh, K.; Hedao, P.; Hurley, P. T.; Carney, K. M.; Abell, R.; Walters, S. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment.Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. S. 1984. Forestland classification: limitations of the use of vegetation. In: Bockheim, J. G., ed. Proceedings of the symposium on forest land classification: experiences, problems, perspectives,March 18-20, 1984. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin: 132–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. S.; Sheard, J. W. 1981. Ecological land classification: a survey approach. Environ. Manage.5:451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. M.; Davis, F.; Csuti, B.; Noss, R.; Butterfield, B.; Groves, C.; Anderson, H.; Caicco, S.; D’Erchia, F.; Edwards, T. C.; Ulliman, J.; Wright, R. G. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monogr.123:1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, H. L.; Hestbeck, J. B. 1995. National biotic resource inventories and GAP analysis. BioScience45: 535–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. A.; Corns, I. G. W.; Klinka, K., editors. 1996. Global to local ecological land classification.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slocombe, D. S. 1993a. Implementing ecosystem-based management. BioScience43(9):612–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slocombe, D. S. 1993b. Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and development. Environ. Manage. 17:289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M.-L.; Carpenter, C. 1996. Application of the USDA Forest Service national hierarchical framework of ecological units at the sub-regional level: The New England-New York example. In: Sims, R. A.; Corns, I. G. W.; Klinka, K., eds. Global to local: ecological land classification.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 187–198.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R. R. 1974. Classification: purposes, principles, progress, prospects. Science185:1115–1123.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M.E.; Terborgh, J., editors. 1999. Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks.Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spies, T. A.; Barnes, B. V. 1985. A multifactor ecological classification of the northern hardwood and conifer ecosystems of Sylvania Recreation Area, Upper Peninsula, Michigan. Can. J. For. Res.15:949–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, F. J.; Kratz, T. K.; Caine, N.; Woodmansee, R. G. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. BioScience38:92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swetnam, T. W.; Allen, C. D.; Betancourt, J. L. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage the future. Ecol. Appl.9:1189–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 1996. Conservation by design: a framework for mission success.Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tüxen, R. 1959. Typen von Vegetationskarten und ihre Erarbeitung. In: Tüxen, R., ed. Vegetationskartierung. Weinheim, Germany: Cramer: 139–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlig, P. W. C.; Jordan, J. K. 1996. A spatial hierarchical framework for the co-management of ecosystems in Canada and the United States for the upper Great Lakes region. Environ. Monit. Assess.39:59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 1973. International classification and mapping of vegetation.Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, D. L.; O’Neill, R. V.; Shugart, H. H., Jr. 1987. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37:119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service). 1993. State soil geographic database (STATSGO)-data user’s guide.Misc. Pub. 1492. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Off.: 88 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, H. 1979. Vegetation of the earth and ecological systems of the geobiosphere.Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon21:213–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H.; Niering, W. A. 1964. Vegetation of Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona. J. Arizona Acad. Sci.3:12–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H.; Niering, W. A. 1965. Vegetation of Santa Catalina Mountains: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology46:429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiken, E. B. 1979. Rationale and methods of ecological land surveys: an overview of Canadian approaches. In: Taylor, D. G., ed. Land/wildlife integration: proceedings of a technical workshop to discuss the incorporation of wildlife information into ecological land surveys, May 1–2, 1979, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Ottawa: Ecological Land Classification Series No. 11, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada: 160 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer, R. E. 1978. U.S. Geological Survey land-use and land-cover classification system. J. For.76:661–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. G.; Murray, M. P.; Merrill, T. 1998. Ecoregions as a level of ecological analysis. Biol. Conserv. 86:207–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerbe, S. 1998. Potential natural vegetation: validity and applicability in landscape planning and nature conservation. Appl. Weg. Sci.1:165–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld, I. S. 1979. Landscape science and land evaluation. ITC-textbook VII-4, 2nd ed. 134 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld, I. S. 1988. Landscape (ecosystem) and vegetation maps: their relation and purpose. In: Küchler, A. W.; Zonneveld, I. S., ed. Vegetation mapping.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 481–486.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld, I. S. 1989. The land unit—a fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its applications. Landscape Ecol.3:67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Patrick S. Bourgeron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hope C. Humphries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark E. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, 200 East Broadway, Missoula, MT, 59807, USA

    Mark E. Jensen

  2. Institute of Alpine and Arctic Research, University of Colorado, 1560 30th Street, Boulder, CO, 80309-0450, USA

    Patrick S. Bourgeron

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bourgeron, P.S., Humphries, H.C., Jensen, M.E. (2001). Elements of Ecological Land Classifications for Ecological Assessments. In: Jensen, M.E., Bourgeron, P.S. (eds) A Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8620-7_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8620-7_23

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98583-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-8620-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation