Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 89–104 | Cite as

A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification

  • Frans Klijn
  • Helias A. Udo de Haes
Article

Abstract

A hierarchical paradigm may help to better understand patterns of ecosystems. In this article we present and argue a framework for hierarchical ecosystem classification and mapping. It is based on a hierarchical model of an ecosystem fully incorporating abiotic components. We propose a nomenclature for hierarchical ecosystem classification based on common practice in ecological land classification and considerations on comprehensiveness which is inspired on and closely follows the Canadian terminology, but incorporating some frequently used European concepts. The relation between classification characteristics and the spatial and temporal hierarchy of ecosystem components is discussed. We exemplify that the approach is particularly valuable as a comprehensive tool for scientific analyses on behalf of environmental policy.

Keywords

ecosystem (ecological land) classification hierarchy (theory) spatial scales 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, R.W., Szabolcs, I. and Targulian, V.O. (eds.), 1990. Global soil change. IIASA, Laxenburg.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, R.G. 1981. Integrated approaches to classifying land as ecosystems. In Proceedings of the workshop on land evaluation for forestry. ILRI publ. 28: 95–109. Edited by P. Laban, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, R.G. 1985. The factor of scale in ecosystem mapping. Environmental Management 9/4: 271–276.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, R.G. 1987. Suggested hierarchy of criteria for multiscale ecosystem mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning 14(1987): 313–319.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, R.G. 1989. Explanatory Supplement to Ecoregions Map of the Continents. Env. Cons. 16/4: 307–310.Google Scholar
  7. Bailey, R.G., Zoltai, S.C. and Wiken, E.B. 1985. Ecological regionalization in Canada and the United States. Geoforum 16/3: 265–275.Google Scholar
  8. Bakker, T.W.M., Klijn, J.A. and Van Zadelhoff, F.J. 1981. Nederlandse kustduinen. Landschapsecologie. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  9. Blandin, P. and Lamotte, M. 1988. Recherche d'une entité écologique correspondant à l'étude des paysages: la notion d'écocomplexe. Bull. Ecol. 19/4: 547–555.Google Scholar
  10. Brink, A.B.A., Mabbutt, J.A., Webster, R. and Beckett, P.H.T. 1965. Report of the Working Group on land classification and data storage. Military Engrg. Exp. Establ. Rep. no. 940. Christchurch, England.Google Scholar
  11. Christian, C.S. and Stewart, G.A. 1968. Methodology of integrated surveys. In: Aerial surveys and integrated studies. Proc. Toulouse Conf. 1964, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 233–280.Google Scholar
  12. Conseil de l'Europe, 1987. Carte de la végétation naturelle des Etats membres des Communautés européennes et du Conseil de l'Europe (texte A. Noirfalise). Publ. no. EUR 10970.Google Scholar
  13. Dale, V.H., Gardner, R.H. and Turner, M.G. 1989. Predicting Across Scales. Comments of the Guest Editors of Landscape Ecology. Landscape Ecology 3–4: 147–151.Google Scholar
  14. Dokuchaev Soil Institute, 1963. Soil-geographical zoning of the USSR. Jerusalem: Israel Prog. Sci. Transl.Google Scholar
  15. Engelen, C.B., Gieske, J.M.J. and Los, S.O. 1988. Grondwaterstromingsstelsels in Nederland. Staatsbosbeheer, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  16. FAO 1988. FAO-Unesco Soil Map of the World, Revised Legend. World Resources Report 60, FAO, Rome. Reprinted as Technical Paper 20, ISRIC, Wageningen, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Haase, G. 1973. Zur Ausgliederung von Raumeinheiten der chorischen und regionischen Dimension. Petermann's Geogr. Mitt. 117: 81–90.Google Scholar
  19. Haase, G. 1989. Medium scale landscape classification in the German Democratic Republic. Landscape Ecology 3/1: 29–41.Google Scholar
  20. Haber, W. 1982. Naturschutzprobleme als Herausforderung an die Forschung. Natur und Landschaft 57/1: 3–8.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes, R.M. and Larsen, D.P. 1988. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Journal WPCF 60/4: 486–493.Google Scholar
  22. Isachenko, A.G. 1973. Principles of landscapes science and physical geographic regionalization. J.S. Massey (ed.), Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  23. Klijn, F. 1988. Milieubeheergebieden. CML-report 37/RIVM report 758702001.Google Scholar
  24. Klijn, F. 1988a. Ecoseries. Aanzet tot een standplaatstypologie. CML-report 45, Leiden/DBW-RIZA working document nr. 8.084 X, Lelystad.Google Scholar
  25. Klijn, F. 1991. Hierarchical classification of ecosystems: a tool for susceptibility analysis and quality evaluation for environmental policy. In Ravera, O. 1991. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Perturbation and recovery. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google Scholar
  26. Klijn, F. 1991a. Environmental Susceptibility to Chemicals: from Processes to Patterns, with Special Reference to mapping Characteristics and Spatial Scales. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Mapping of Soil and Terrain Vulnerability to Specified Chemical Compounds in Europe at a Scale of 1: 5 M. Edited by N.H. Batjes and E.M. Bridges, 1991. ISRIC, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  27. Klijn, F. and Laansma, A. 1990. Gebiedsgericht milieubeleid. CML-report 61, Leiden.Google Scholar
  28. Klijn, F. and Udo de Haes, H.A. 1990. Hiërarchische ecosysteemclassificatie; voorstel voor een eenduidig begrippenkader. Landschap 1990 7/4: 215–233.Google Scholar
  29. Kwakernaak, C. 1982. Landscape Ecology of a Prealpine Area. Publ. Fys. Geogr. Bodemk. Lab. 33, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. Lands Directorate Environment Canada, 1981. Various publications.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, J.B., Groen, C.L.G. and Van 'tZelfde, M. 1991. De milieukwaliteit van de ecodistricten het Laagveengebied en de Kalkrijke Duinen. RIVM-report 711901001, Bilthoven/ CML-report 73, Leiden.Google Scholar
  32. Leser, H. 1976. Landschaftsökologie. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  33. Leser, H. 1991. Landschaftsökologie. 3rd (revised) Ed. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environmental Management, 1990. Gebiedsgericht Milieubeleid: Actieplan. Staatsuitgeverij, The Hague.Google Scholar
  35. Müller, S. 1970. Öko-Serien der baden-württembergischen forstlichen Standortskartierung am Beispiel der Kalkverwitterungslehme. Mitt. der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft, 10: 43–46.Google Scholar
  36. Nip, M.I., Latour, J.B., Klijn, F., Koster, P.K., Groen, C.L.G., Udo de Haes, H.A., De Kruijf, H.A.M. 1992. Environmental Quality Assessment of Ecodistricts: a Comprehensive Method for Environmental Policy, pp. 865–881. In Ecological Indicators. Edited by D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt and V.J. McDonald, 1992. Elsevier, London and New York.Google Scholar
  37. Neef, E. 1967. Die theoretische Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre. Verlag H. Haack, Gotha-Leipzig.Google Scholar
  38. Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology, an introduction. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 118.Google Scholar
  40. O'Neill, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B., Allen, T.F.H. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  41. O'Neill, R.V. 1988. Hierarchy Theory and Global Change. In Scales and Global Change. Edited by T. Rosswall, R.G. Woodmansee and P.G. Risser, 1988. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester/London.Google Scholar
  42. Pedroli, G.B.M. 1987. Ecohydrologie, een overzicht. Landschap 1987 4/4: 320–330.Google Scholar
  43. Piket, J.J.C. 1987. Atlas van Nederland. Part 16: Landschap. Staatsuitgeverij, The Hague.Google Scholar
  44. RIVM, 1989: Concern for Tomorrow. National Environmental Survey 1985–2010. RIVM, Bilthoven.Google Scholar
  45. Rowe, J.S. 1961. The Level of Integration Concept and Ecology. Ecology 42: 420–427.Google Scholar
  46. Runhaar, J., Groen, C.L.G., Van der Meijden, R. and Stevers, R.A.M. 1988. Een nieuwe indeling in ecologische groepen binnen de Nederlandse flora. Gorteria 13(1987): 277–359.Google Scholar
  47. Schultz, A.M. 1967. The ecosystem as a conceptual tool in the management of natural resources. In Natural Resources: Quality and Quantity. Edited by S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup and J.J. Parsons, 1967. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  48. Stevers, R.A.M., Runhaar, J., Udo de Haes, H.A. and Groen, C.L.G. 1987. Het CML-ecotopensysteem, een landelijke ecosysteemtypologie toegespitst op the vegetatie. Landschap 4/2: 135–150.Google Scholar
  49. Sinnige, C.A.M., Tamis, W.L.M. and Klijn, F. 1991. Aanzet tot een ecotopenclassificatie toegespitst op de bodemfauna. CML-report 75, Leiden.Google Scholar
  50. Suter, G.W. II, 1990. Endpoints for Regional Ecological Risk Assessment. Environmental Management 14/1: 9–23.Google Scholar
  51. Theurillat, J.P. 1992. L'analyse du paysage végétal en symphytocoenologie: ses niveaux et leurs domaines spatiaux. Bull. Ecol. 23/1–2: 83–92.Google Scholar
  52. Toth, J. 1963. A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small drainage basins. Journal of Geophysical Research 68/16: 4795–4812.Google Scholar
  53. Trewartha, G.T. 1968. An Introduction to Climate. 4th ed. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Turner, M.G., Dale, V.H. and Gardner, R.H. 1989. Predicting across scales: Theory development and testing. Landscape Ecology 3/3–4: 245–252.Google Scholar
  55. Urban, D.L., O'Neill, R.V. and Shugart, H.H. Jr. 1987. Landscape Ecology. A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience 37/2: 119–127.Google Scholar
  56. Van der Maarel, E. 1976. On the establishment of plant community boundaries. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 89 (1976): 415–443.Google Scholar
  57. Van der Maarel, E. and Dauvellier, P.L. 1978. Naar een Globaal Ecologisch Model voor de ruimtelijke ontwikkeling van Nederland. Staatsuitgeverij, The Hague.Google Scholar
  58. Verdonschot, P.F.M., Runhaar, J., Van der Hoek, W.F., De Bok, C.F.M. and Specken, B.P.M. 1992. Aanzet tot een ecologische indeling van oppervlaktewateren in Nederland. RIN-report 92/1/CML-report 78, Leersum.Google Scholar
  59. Vos, W., Harms, W.B. and Stortelder (eds.), 1982. Vooronderzoek naar landschapsecologische relatie tussen ecosystemen. Dorschkamp-report 246, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  60. Wagner, A. 1968. Oekoserie, Oekoseriengruppe und Standortstypengruppe. Neue Begriffe in der forstlichen Standortsaufnahme. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift 42: 731–732.Google Scholar
  61. Walter, H. 1979. Vegetation of the earth and ecological systems of the geo-biosphere. 2nd ed., Springer Verlag, New York Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Wiken, E.B. 1979. Rationale and methods of ecological land surveys: an overview of Canadian approaches. In Land/wildlife integration. Ecological Land Calssification Series no. 11, Lands Directorate Environment Canada. Edited by D.G. Taylor, 1979.Google Scholar
  63. Wiken, E.B. and Ironside, G. 1977. The development of ecological (biophysical) land classification in Canada. Landscape Planning 4: 273–275.Google Scholar
  64. Witte, J.P.M., Klijn, F., Claessen, F.A.M., Groen, C.L.G. and Van der Meijden, R. 1992. A Model to Predict and Assess the Impacts of Hydrologic Changes on Terrestrial Ecosystems in the Netherlands, and its use on a Climate Scenario. Wetland Ecology and Management.Google Scholar
  65. Zonneveld, I.S. 1984. Landschapsbeeld and landschapsecologie. Landschap 1984/1: 5–9.Google Scholar
  66. Zonneveld, J.I.S. 1985. Levend land; de geografie van het Nederlandse landschap. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht/Antwerpen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frans Klijn
    • 1
  • Helias A. Udo de Haes
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre of Environmental ScienceRA LeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations