Skip to main content
Log in

Ecological land classification: A survey approach

  • Research
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • 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 

  • Brush, S. G. 1974. Should the history of science be rated X?Science 183:1164–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, R. A. 1966. Air masses, streamlines, and the boreal forest.Geographical Bulletin 8:228–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Christian, C. S., and G. A. Stewart. 1968. Methodology of Integrated Survey: Aerial Surveys and Integrated Studies, UNESCO, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hare, F. K., and J. C. Ritchie. 1972. The boreal bioclimates.Geographical Review 62:333–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, G. A. 1960. Regional site research.Forestry Chronicle 36:401–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Kessell, S. R. 1979. Phytosociological inference and resource management.Environmental Management 3:29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 2nd ed. 210 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacate, D. S. 1969. Guidelines for Bio-Physical Land Classification. Publication No. 1264, Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 61 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabbutt, J. A. 1968. Review of concepts of land classification. Pages 11–28in G. A. Stewart, ed. Land Evaluation. Macmillan, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfadyen, A. 1975. Some thoughts on the behaviour of ecologists.J. Ecology 63:379–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacHattie, L. B., and R. J. McCormack. 1961. Forest microclimate: A topographic study in Ontario.J Ecol. 49:301–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pfister, R. D., and S. F. Arno. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation.Forest Sci. 26:52–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rowe, J. S. 1961. The level-of-integration concept and ecology.Ecology 42:420–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1980. The common denominator of land classification in Canada: an ecological approach to mapping.For. Chron. 56:19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sneath, P. H. A., and R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 573 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speight, J. G. 1977. Landform pattern description from aerial photographs.Photogrammetria 32:161–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Williams, W. T. 1967. Numbers, taxonomy and judgment.Bot. Rev. 33:378–386.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rowe, J.S., Sheard, J.W. Ecological land classification: A survey approach. Environmental Management 5, 451–464 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01866822

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01866822

Key words

Navigation