Environmental Management

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 323–329 | Cite as

Application of the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale for vegetation analysis in land development studies

  • Douglas A. Wikum
  • G. Frederick Shanholtzer
Research

Abstract

To document environmental impact predictions for land development, as required by United States government regulatory agencies, vegetation studies are conducted using a variety of methods. Density measurement (stem counts) is one method that is frequently used. However, density measurement of shrub and herbaceous vegetation is time-consuming and costly. As an alternative, the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale was used to analyze vegetation in several ecological studies. Results from one of these studies show that the Braun-Blanquet method requires only one third to one fifth the field time required for the density method. Furthermore, cover-abundance ratings are better suited than density values to elucidate graphically species-environment relationships. For extensive surveys this method provides sufficiently accurate baseline data to allow environmental impact assessment as required by regulatory agencies.

Key words

Environmental impact assessment Density measurement Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale Vegetation analysis Biogeography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant sociology (Transl. G. D. Fuller and H. S. Conrad). McGraw-Hill, New York. 539 pp.Google Scholar
  2. —. 1964. Pflanzensociologie: Grundzuge der Vegetationskunde. 3te aufl. Springer-Verlag, Wein. 865 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Brillouin, L. 1956. Science and information theory. Academic Press. New York. 320 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Ceska, A., and H. Roemer. 1971. A computer program for identifying species-releve groups in vegetation studies. Vegetatio 23:255–277.Google Scholar
  5. Frenkel, R. E., and C. M. Harrison. 1974. An assessment of the usefulness of phytosciological and numerical classificatory methods for the community biogeographer. J. Biogeography 1:27–56.Google Scholar
  6. Gauch, H. G., and R. H. Whittaker. 1972. Comparison of ordination techniques. Ecology 53:868–875.Google Scholar
  7. Moore, John J., S. J. P. Fitzsimons, E. Lamber, and J. White. 1970. A comparison and evaluation of some phytosociological techniques. Vegetatio 20:1–20.Google Scholar
  8. Mueller-Dombois, Dieter, and Heinz Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Orloci, L. 1975. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague. 276 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Richmond, T. de A., and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1972. Coastline ecosystems on Oahu, Hawaii. Vegetatio 25:367–400.Google Scholar
  11. Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. 1963. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press. Urbana. 117 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688.Google Scholar
  13. Smartt, P. F. M., S. E. Meacock, and J. M. Lambert. 1974. Investigations into the properties of quantitative vegetational data. 1. Pilot study. J. Ecology 62:735–759.Google Scholar
  14. Smartt, P. F. M., and J. E. A. Grainger. 1974. Sampling for vegetation survey: some aspects of the behavior of unrestricted, restricted, and stratified techniques. J. Biogeography 1:193–206.Google Scholar
  15. Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251.Google Scholar
  16. Whittaker, R. H. (ed.). 1973. Handbook of vegetation science: Part. V. Ordination and classification of communities. Dr. W. Junk N. V. The Hague. 738 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Wikum, D. A., and M. K. Wali. 1974. Analysis of a North Dakota gallery forest: vegetation in relation to topographic and soil gradients. Ecol. Monogr. 44:441–464.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas A. Wikum
    • 1
  • G. Frederick Shanholtzer
    • 2
  1. 1.Stone & Webster Engineering CorporationBoston
  2. 2.Dames & MooreCranford

Personalised recommendations