Environmental Management

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 451–464

Ecological land classification: A survey approach

  • J. Stan Rowe
  • John W. Sheard


A landscape approach to ecological land mapping, as illustrated in this article, proceeds by pattern recognition based on ecological theory. The unit areas delineated are hypotheses that arise from a knowledge of what is ecologically important in the land. Units formed by the mapper are likely to be inefficient or irrelevant for ecological purposes unless he possesses a sound rationale as to the interactions and controlling influences of the structural components of ecosystems. Here is the central problem with what have been called “objective” multivariate approaches to mapping based on grid units and the sometimes arbitrary attributes thereof; they tend to conceal the importance of ecological theory and the necessity for theory-based supervision of pattern recognition. Multivariate techniques are best used iteratively to verify and refine map units initially recognized and delineated by theoretical considerations. These ideas are illustrated by an example of a reconnaissance survey in the Northwest Territories of Canada.

Key words

Ecological land classification Landscape ecosystems Parametric terrain mapping Boreal forest Northwest Territories (Canada) Discriminant analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Bradley, S. W., J. S. Rowe, and C. Tarnocai. 1981. Ecological Land Classification Studies: The Lockhart River Map Area (N.T.S. 75), Western Subarctic of the N.W.T. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. (In press).Google Scholar
  2. Brush, S. G. 1974. Should the history of science be rated X?Science 183:1164–1172.Google Scholar
  3. Bryson, R. A. 1966. Air masses, streamlines, and the boreal forest.Geographical Bulletin 8:228–269.Google Scholar
  4. Bunce, R. G. H., S. K. Morell, and H. E. Stel. 1975. The application of multivariate analysis to regional survey.Journal of Environmental Management 3:151–166.Google Scholar
  5. Buse, A. 1974. Habitats as recording units in ecological survey: A field trial in Caernarvonshire, North Wales.Journal of Applied Ecology 12:517–528.Google Scholar
  6. Christian, C. S., and G. A. Stewart. 1968. Methodology of Integrated Survey: Aerial Surveys and Integrated Studies, UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
  7. Goodall, D. W. 1953. Objective methods for the classification of vegetation. I. The use of positive interspecific correlation.Australian Journal of Botany 1:39–63.Google Scholar
  8. Hare, F. K., and J. C. Ritchie. 1972. The boreal bioclimates.Geographical Review 62:333–365.Google Scholar
  9. Hills, G. A. 1960. Regional site research.Forestry Chronicle 36:401–423.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, E. A., and J. S. Rowe. 1975. Fire in the subarctic wintering ground of the Beverley caribou herd.Amer. Midland Natur. 94:1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Kellogg, C. E. 1958. A look at future soil problems. First North American Forest Soils Conference Proceedings, East Lansing. Bulletin Agriculture Experimental Station, Michigan State University, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  12. Kessell, S. R. 1979. Phytosociological inference and resource management.Environmental Management 3:29–40.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 2nd ed. 210 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Lacate, D. S. 1969. Guidelines for Bio-Physical Land Classification. Publication No. 1264, Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 61 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Mabbutt, J. A. 1968. Review of concepts of land classification. Pages 11–28in G. A. Stewart, ed. Land Evaluation. Macmillan, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Macfadyen, A. 1975. Some thoughts on the behaviour of ecologists.J. Ecology 63:379–391.Google Scholar
  17. MacHattie, L. B., and R. J. McCormack. 1961. Forest microclimate: A topographic study in Ontario.J Ecol. 49:301–323.Google Scholar
  18. Nie, H. H., C. H. Hull, J. C. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H. Bent. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw-Hill, Toronto, ON, Canada. 675 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Pfister, R. D., and S. F. Arno. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation.Forest Sci. 26:52–70.Google Scholar
  20. Robinove, C. J. 1979. Integrated Terrain Mapping with Digital LANDSAT Images in Queensland, Australia. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1102, Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 39 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Rowe, J. S. 1961. The level-of-integration concept and ecology.Ecology 42:420–427.Google Scholar
  22. —, 1980. The common denominator of land classification in Canada: an ecological approach to mapping.For. Chron. 56:19–20.Google Scholar
  23. Rubec, C. D. A. 1979. Applications of Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification in Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 7. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 396 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Sneath, P. H. A., and R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 573 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Speight, J. G. 1977. Landform pattern description from aerial photographs.Photogrammetria 32:161–182.Google Scholar
  26. Stocker, M., F. F. Gilbert, and D. W. Smith. 1977. Vegetation and deer habitat relations in southern Ontario: Classification of habitat types.J Applied Ecol. 14:419–432.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, W. T. 1967. Numbers, taxonomy and judgment.Bot. Rev. 33:378–386.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Stan Rowe
    • 1
  • John W. Sheard
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant EcologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations