Abstract
The Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG) of western North Dakota support the largest permitted cattle grazing use within all lands administered by the USDA, Forest Service, as well as critical habitat for many wildlife species. This fact, coupled with the need to revise current planning direction for range allotments of the LMNG, necessitated that a broad-level characterization of ecosystem integrity and resource conditions be conducted across all lands within the study area (approximately 800,000 hectares) in a rapid and cost-effective manner. The approach taken in this study was based on ecological classifications, which effectively utilized existing field plot data collected for a variety of previous inventory objectives, and their continuous spatial projection across the LMNG by maps of both existing and potential vegetation. These two map themes represent current and reference conditions (existing vs. potential vegetation); their intersection allowed us to assign various ecological status ratings (i.e., ecosystem integrity and resource condition) based on the degree of departure between current and reference conditions. In this paper, we present a brief review of methodologies used in the development of ecological classifications, and also illustrate their application to assessments of rangeland health through selected maps of ecological status ratings for the LMNG.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arno, S., Simmerman, D. and Keane, R.: 1986, Characterizing succession within a forest habitat type: An approach designed for resource managers, Res. Pap. INT-357., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Austin, M.P. and Heylingers, P.C.: 1991, ‘New approach to vegetation survey design: gradsect sampling’ in: Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysisMargules, C.R.; Austin, M.P. (eds.) Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO, pp. 31–36.
Bailey, R.G., Jensen, M.E., Cleland, D.T. and Bourgeron, P.S.: 1994, ‘Design and use of ecological mapping units’ in: Ecosystem management: principles and applications: eastside forest ecosystem health assessmentJensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S. (eds.), Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-318. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 2, 101–112.
Burkart, M.R., Oberle, S.L., Hewitt, M.J. and Pickus, J.: 1994, ‘A framework for regional agroecosystems characterization using the National Resources Inventory’ Journal of Environmental Quality 23(5), 866–874.
Cleland, David T., Avers, Peter E., McNab, W. Henry, Jensen, Mark E., Bailey, Robert G., King, Thomas Walter, and Russell, E.: 1997, ‘National hierarchical framework of ecological units’ in: Ecosystem management: applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resourcesBoyce, Mark S. and Haney, Alan, (eds.), Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. 181–200.
Coulombe, Mary J.: 1995, ‘Sustaining the world's forests: the Santiago Agreement-criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests’ Journal of ForestryApril, pp. 18–21.
Council on Environmental Quality: 1991, Environmental qualityTwenty-first Annual Report, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.
Daubenmire, R.: 1968, Plant communities: A textbook of plant synecology, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 300 pp.
Dyksterhuis, E.J.: 1949, ‘Condition and management of rangeland based on quantitative ecology’ Journal of Range Management 2, 104–115.
Franklin, Janet: 1995, ‘Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients’ Progress in Physical Geography 19(4), 474–499.
Gauch, H.G.: 1982, Multivariate analysis in community ecologyCambridge University Press, New York.
Huschle, G. and Hironaka, M.: 1980, ‘Classification and ordination of seral plant communities’ Journal of Range Management 33, 179–182.
IUCN: 1991, Caring for the Earth-a strategy for sustainable living. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural ResourcesUnited Nations Environment Program, and World Wide Fund for Nature (IUCN/UNEP/WWFN), Gland, Switzerland.
Jensen, Mark E., McNicoll, Cecilia H. and Prather, Martin: 1991, ‘Application of ecological classification to environmental effects analysis’ J. of Env. Qual 20, 24–30.
Jensen, M.E., DiBenedetto, J.P. and Heisner, F.: 1992, An ecological classification for the Little Missouri National GrasslandsMissoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Northern Region, 480 pp.
Jensen, Mark E., Bourgeron, Patrick, Everett, Richard and Goodman, Iris: 1996, ‘Ecosystem management: a landscape ecology perspective’ Journal of the American Water Resources Association 32, 203–216.
Jensen, Mark E., Redmond, Roland L., Goodman, Iris A. and Bourgeron, Patrick S.: 1999, Use of ecological classifications in the assessment of rangeland healthMissoula, MT, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, 31 pp.
Jensen, Mark E., DiBenedetto, Jeff P., Montagne, Cliff and Bourgeron, Patrick S.: in review, ‘Biophysical modeling of rangeland potential vegetation at a landscape scale’ Journal of Rangeland Management.
Johnson, S.R. and Bouzaher, A.: 1995, Conservation of Great Plains ecosystems: current science, future optionKluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.
Lessard, G., Jensen, M.E., Crespi, M. and Bourgeron, P.S.: 1999, ‘A national framework for integrated ecological assessments’ in: Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: human dimensions in assessment policy and managementCordel, H. Ken and Bergstrom, John C. (eds.). Sagamore Press, Champaign Urbana, IL.
National Research Council: 1994, Rangeland health: new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor range landNational Academy Press, Washington, DC, 182 pp.
Paivinen, R., Koehl, M., Lund, H.G. and Blue, R. (eds.): 1996, Proceedings-workshop on remote sensing for the global forest resource assessment (FRA 2000)U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory, Economics, and Recreation Research, Washington, DC. 119 pp.
RISC: 1983, Guidelines and terminology for range inventories and monitoring. Report of the Range Inventory Standardization CommitteeSociety of Range Management, Denver, CO.
Samson, F.and Knopf, F.: 1994, ‘Prairie conservation in North America’ Bioscience 44, 418–421.
Scott, J.M. and Jennings, M.D.: 1998, ‘Large-area mapping of biodiversity’ Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 85, 34–47.
Shiflet, T.N.: 1973, ‘Range sites and soils in the United States’ in: Arid shrublandsProc. 3rd Workshop of the U.S./Australian Rangeland Panel, Tucson, AZ, Society of Range Management, Denver, CO, pp. 26–33.
The Conservation Foundation: 1988, Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action AgendaThe Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 1991, ‘Ecological classification’ in: Ecological classification and inventory handbook, FSH 2090.11, Washington, DC.
Winne, J. Chris, Redmond, Roland L., Jensen, Mark E., Hart, Melissa M. and DiBenedetto, Jeff P.: in review, ‘Integrating satellite imagery and potential vegetation to delineate pattern and map existing vegetation in a mixed grass prairie ecosystem’ Journal of Vegetation Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jensen, M.E., Redmond, R.L., Dibenedetto, J.P. et al. Application of Ecological Classification and Predictive Vegetation Modeling to Broad-Level Assessments of Ecosystem Health. Environ Monit Assess 64, 197–212 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006479926454
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006479926454