Environmental Management

, Volume 34, Supplement 1, pp S27–S38

Perspectives on the Nature and Definition of Ecological Regions

Article

Abstract

Among environmental managers, recognition of the importance of integrating management activities across agencies and programs that have different responsibilities for the same geographic areas has created an awareness of the need for a common hierarchical framework of ecological regions (ecoregions) to implement the strategy. Responding to this need in the United States, nine federal agencies have signed a memorandum of understanding on the subject of developing a common framework of ecoregions. However, considerable disagreement over how to define ecoregions and confusion over the strengths and limitations of existing frameworks stand in the way of achieving this goal. This paper presents some perspectives on the nature and definition of ecoregions related to this confusion and provides a brief overview of the weight of evidence approach to mapping ecoregions, using an example initiated by the US Environmental Protection Agency. To effectively implement ecosystem assessment, management, and research at local, regional, and national levels, research is needed to increase our understanding of ecoregions. We must find ways to illustrate the nature of ecoregion boundaries and the variability of characteristics within ecoregions as they relate to management issues. Research must also be conducted on comparing existing frameworks and developing indices of ecological integrity to effectively evaluate their usefulness.

Ecoregions Ecological regions Ecology Ecosystems Ecosystem management Regionalization Environment 

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J. E. 1991A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalnessConservation Biology5347352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey, R. G. 1988Problems with using overlay mapping for planning and their implications for geographic information systemsEnvironmental Management121117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckoff, M. 2000Redecorating nature: deep science, holism, feeling, and heartBioscience50635Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Box, T. W. 1994. Sustainable ecological systems and cultural change. Pages 2–9 in Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, RM-247, rocky Mountain forest and range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryce, S. A., J. M. Omernik, D. E. Pater, M. Ulmer, J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck, S. H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota. Two-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scale 1:1,500,000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryce, S. A., Omernik, J. M., Larsen, D. P. 1999aEcoregions: A geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem managementEnvironmental Practice1141155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryce, S. A., Larsen, D. P., Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R. 1999bAssessing relative risks to aquatic ecosystems: A Mid-Appalachian case studyJournal of the American Water Resources Association352336Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 1997. Ecological regions of North America: Toward a common perspective. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 71 pp.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chapman, S. S., J. M. Omernik, J. A. Freeouf, D. G. Huggins, J. R. McCauley, C. C. Freeman, G. Steinauer, R. T. Angelo, and R. L. Schlepp. 2001. Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas. (Two-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scale1:1,950,000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, W. S., B. D. Snyder, J. B. Stribling, and C. Stoughton. 1996. Summary of state biological assessment programs for streams and wadeable rivers. EPA 230-R-96-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fitzpatrick, J. W. 2002The AOU and bird conservation: Recommitment to the revolutionThe Auk119907913Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T. R., Larsen, D. P., Omernik, J. M., Hughes, R. M. 1989Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resourcesEPA/600/3–89/060. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Environmental Research LaboratoryCorvallis, Oregon152Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallant, A. L., E. F. Binnian, J. M. Omernik, and M. B. Shasby. 1995. Ecoregions of Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1567. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 73 pp.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gauthier, D. A., and E. B. Wiken. 2003. Monitoring the conservation of grassland habitats, prairie ecozone, Canada. Journal of Ecological Monitoring and Assessment, 8(1): 343–364Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Griffith, G. E., Omernik, J. M., Woods, A. J. 1999Ecoregions, watersheds, basins, and HUCs: How state and federal agencies frame water qualityJournal of Soil and Water Conservation54666677Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Griffith, G. E., J. M. Omernik, J. A. Comstock, S. Lawrence, G. Martin, A. Goddard, V. J. Hulcher, and T. Foster. 2001. Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia. Two-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, scale 1:1,700,000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holling, C. S. 1996Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for peopleEcological Applications6733735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hudson, B. D. 1992The soil survey as a paradigm-based scienceSoil Science Society of America Journal56836841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P., Omernik, J. M. 1986Regional reference sites: A method for assessing stream potentialsEnvironmental Management10629635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hughes, R. M. 1995

    Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions

    Davis, W.Simon, T. eds. Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resources planning and decision makingLewis PublishersBoca Raton, Florida
    Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karr, J. R. 1993Defining and assessing ecological integrity: Beyond water qualityEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry1215211531Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kay, J. K., Schneider, E. 1994Embracing complexity: The challenge of the ecosystem approachAlternatives203239Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewis, G. M. 1966Regional ideas and reality in the Cis-Rocky Mountain WestTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers38135150Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Loveland, T.R., Merchant, J.W., Brown, J. F., Ohlen, D. O., Reed, B. C., Olsen, P., Hutchinson, J. 1995Seasonal land-cover regions of the United StatesAnnals of the Association of American Geographers85339355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Loveland, T. R., Sohl, T. L., Stehman, S. V., Gallant, A. L., Sayler, K. L., Napton, D. E. 2002A strategy for estimating the rates of recent United States land cover changesPhotogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing6810911099Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marin, V. H. 1997General system theory and the ecological conceptBulletin of the Ecological Society of America77102104Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McDonald, J. R. 1994Review of “Moving regions’ and ‘Stuck in the region’: Changing scales for regional identity.”Annals of the Association of American Geographers84532533Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McDonnell, M. J., Pickett, S. T. A., (eds.) 1993Humans as components of ecosystemsSpringer-VerlagNew York356Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGrath, C. L., A. J. Woods, J. M. Omernik, S. A. Bryce, M. Edmondson, J. A. Nesser, J. Sheldon, R. C. Crawford, J. A. Comstock, and M. D. Plocher. 2001. Ecoregions of Idaho. (Two-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scale 1:1,350,000.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McHarg, I. L. 1997Natural factors in planningJournal of Soil and Water Conservation521317Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McMahon, G., Gregonis, S. M., Walton, S. W., Omernik, J. M., Thorson, T. D., Freeouf, J. A., Rorick, A. H., Keys, J. E. 2001Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the conterminous United StatesEnvironmental Management28293316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Connell, T. J., Jackson, L. E., Brooks, R. P. 1998A bird community index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic HighlandsEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment51145156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Omernik, J. M. 1987Ecoregions of the conterminous United StatesAnnals of the Association of American Geographers77118125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Omernik, J. M. 1995

    Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management

    Davis, W. S.Simon, T. P. eds. Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision makingLewis PublishingBoca Raton, Florida
    Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Omernik, J. M. 2003The misuse of hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, reporting, and ecosystem managementJournal of the American Water Resources Association39563573Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Omernik, J. M., Bailey, R. G. 1997Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregionsJournal of the American Water Resources Association33115Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Omernik, J. M., and A. L. Gallant. 1990. Defining regions for evaluating environmental resources. Pages 936–947 in Proceedings of the Global Natural Resource Monitoring and Assessment Symposium, Preparing for the 21st Century. Venice, Italy, September 24–30, 1989.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Omernik, J. M., Griffith, G. E. 1991Ecological regions vs. hydrologic units: Frameworks for managing water qualityJournal of Soil and Water Conservation46334340Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Omernik, J. M., Powers, C. F. 1983Total alkalinity of surface waters—a national mapAnnals of the Association of American Geographers73133135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Omernik, J. M., Chapman, S. S., Lillie, R. A., Dumke, R. T. 2000Ecoregions of WisconsinTransactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters8877103Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ricketts, T. H., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D. M., Loucks, C. J., Eichbaum, W. 1999Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: A conservation assessmentIsland PressWashington, D.C.485Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rohm, C. M., Omernik, J. M., Woods, A. J., Stoddard, J. L. 2002Regional characteristics of nutrient concentrations in streams and their application to nutrient criteria developmentJournal of the American Water Resources Association38213239Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rossum, S., Lavin, S. 2000Where are the Great Plains? A cartographic analysisProfessional Geographer52543552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Salwasser, H., and R. D. Pfister. 1994. Ecosystem management: from theory to practice. Pages 150–161 in Sustainable ecological systems: Implementing an ecological approach to land management. USDA Forest Service, general technical report RM-257, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schaeffer, D. J., Herricks, E. E., Kerster, H. W. 1988Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem healthEnvironmental Management12445455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shirazi, M. A., Johnson, C. B., Omernik, J. M., White, D., Haggerty, P. K., Griffith, G. E. 2003Quantitative soil descriptions for ecoregions of the United StatesJournal of Environmental Quality32550561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. National strategy for the development of regional nutrient criteria. EPA 822-R-98-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 589 pp.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    US GAO (General Accounting Office). 1994. Ecosystem management: Additional actions needed to test a promising approach. GAO/RCED-94-111. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 87 pp.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vogelmann, J. E., Howard, S. M., Yang, L., Larson, C. R., Wylie, B. K., Van Driel, J. N. 2001Completion of the 1990’s national land cover data set for the conterminous United StatesPhotogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing67650662Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Whittier, T. R., D. P. Larsen, R. M. Hughes, C. M. Rohm, A. L. Gallant, and J. M. Omernik. 1987. The Ohio stream regionalization project: A compendium of results. EPA/600/3-87/025. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, 68 pp.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wicklum, D., Davis, R. W. 1995Ecosystem health and integrityCanadian Journal of Botany739971000Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wiken, E. B. 1986. Terrestrial ecozones of Canada. Environment Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 19, Ottawa, Ontario, 26 pp.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wiken, E. B. 1997. State of the environment reporting in Canada and North America: An overview of the concepts and applications. Pages C13–C18 in Proceedings of the First National Workshop on the State of the Environment Reporting Workshop. SOER occasional paper no. 1. ISBN: 0-797401744-3. Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Ministry of the Environment and Tourism, Harare, Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wiken, E. B. 1999Measuring up responsibility: Assessing protected areas through state of the environment reporting and indicatorsThe George Wright Forum161421Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Woods, A. J., D. A. Lammers, S. A. Bryce, J. M. Omernik, R. L. Denton, M. Domeier, and J. A. Comstock. 2001. Ecoregions of Utah. (Two-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scale 1:1,175,000.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yaffee, S. L. 1999Three faces of ecosystem managementConservation Biology13713725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zonneveld, I. S. 1988. Landscape ecology and its application. Pages 3–15 in Moss, M. (ed.), Landscape ecology and management. Proceedings of the First Symposium of the Canadian Society for Landscape Ecology and Management: University of Guelph, May, 1987. Polyscience Publications Inc., Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey, c/oU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology DivisionOregonUSA

Personalised recommendations