A Revised U'S' National Vegetation Classification Standard: Progress and Next Steps - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 38
About This Presentation
Title:

A Revised U'S' National Vegetation Classification Standard: Progress and Next Steps

Description:

A Revised U'S' National Vegetation Classification Standard: Progress and Next Steps – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:90
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: DonFa4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A Revised U'S' National Vegetation Classification Standard: Progress and Next Steps


1
A Revised U.S. National Vegetation Classification
StandardProgress and Next Steps
Don Faber-Langendoen NatureServe Dave Tart
U.S. Forest Service On behalf of the
Federal Geographic Data Committee Hierarchy
Revisions Working Group
2
Revised USNVC The HRWG SCOPE OF WORK (2003)
INTRO
  • INTRODUCTION
  • In 1997 the FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee formally
    adopted a federal standard
  • The NVC framework was meant to provide an
    integrated hierarchy of physiognomic and
    floristic levels and types.
  • Although there have been some successes, there
    has also been increased frustration with the
    current ability to apply the physiognomic
    standards.
  • This has led to a variety of work-arounds at
    the physiognomic level that defeat the purpose of
    having a standard.
  • By re-assessing the current hierarchy in light of
    the tests and applications (which were indicated
    in the 1997 FGDC standards), we hope to greatly
    improve its utility as a standard.

FROM THE USNVC STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE
HIERARCHY REVISIONS WORKING GROUP AND RELATED
APPLICATIONS
3
Revised USNVC The HRWG SCOPE OF WORK (2003)
SCOPE
  • SCOPE (brief)
  • Our main focus is on the physiognomic levels and
    types, since the FGDC-STD-005 standard provided a
    complete set of physiognomic types for the entire
    U.S.
  • However, because a draft set of floristic units
    (alliance and association types) is now available
    from NatureServe, we would also like to revise
    the physiognomic levels to better link to the
    floristic levels and types.
  • Our intent is to ensure that the physiognomic
    levels and types meet the need of the standard as
    originally stated, not to revise the basic
    purpose of the standard.

FROM THE USNVC STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE
HIERARCHY REVISIONS WORKING GROUP AND RELATED
APPLICATIONS
4
Revised USNVC The HRWG SCOPE OF WORK (2003)
SCOPE
  • SCOPE (detailed)
  • The physiognomic standards of a national
    vegetation classification will be FGDC data
    content standards. The standards will include
  • Classification methodology standards to revise
    criteria for the definition of the physiognomic
    levels in order to improve their linkage with
    developing floristic units.
  • Application standards to review how well the
    current physiognomic levels meet the needs of
    various applications, including links with remote
    sensing and links with scale.
  • Data collection standards the current data
    collection standards are, in part, based on the
    current physiognomic levels. Data collection
    standards will need to be compatible with any
    revisions to these levels (i.e. important
    physiognomic criteria to be recording in the
    field)
  • The revisions will be made in order to clarify
    how best to use physiognomic criteria for
    defining units in the upper levels of the NVC
    standard.

FROM THE USNVC HIERARCHY REVISIONS SCOPE OF
WORK 2002
5
Revised USNVC The HRWG SCOPE OF WORK (2003)
APPLICATION
  • APPLICATIONS
  • Revisions to the current NVC hierarchy would
    benefit from testing through applications.
  • A key application will be to improve the linkage
    between the highest floristic unit (alliance) and
    the lowest level of the revised physiognomic
    hierarchy.
  • Preliminary hierarchy revision testing indicated
    that an additional floristic level could be added
    above alliance (in forests and woodlands this
    would be comparable to the Major Forest Type
    level above the Forest Cover Type level).
  • As part of the hierarchy revisions work then, we
    propose to re-evaluate the linkage between
    alliances and upper level units of the hierarchy,
    especially for forests and woodlands.

FROM THE USNVC STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE
HIERARCHY REVISIONS WORKING GROUP AND RELATED
APPLICATIONS
6
Revised USNVC The HRWG SCOPE OF WORK (2003)
DEVELOPMENT
  • DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLETION SCHEDULE
  • The proposal to form the Hierarchy Revisions
    Working Group has already been approved FGDC
    Standards Working Group (SWG).
  • We expect that it will take approximately 6 to 9
    months for the Working Group to draft a proposed
    revision, 6 weeks for review, and another 2
    months to collate the reviews and submit a
    revision to the Vegetation Subcommittee.
  • well maybe 2 years
  • Once the Subcommittee is satisfied with the
    content of the standards, they will be forwarded
    to the SWG for consideration for public review,
    including international review, after which the
    working group will incorporate the review
    comments.

FROM THE USNVC STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE
HIERARCHY REVISIONS WORKING GROUP AND RELATED
APPLICATIONS
7
Revised USNVC The HRWG SCOPE OF WORK (2003)
REALITY CHECK
  • Progress to date
  • - Classification standard (well-developed)
  • - Data collection standard (in progress)
  • - Application (in progress)
  • What next?

8
Hierarchy Revisions Working Group Members
  • CANADA
  • Del Meidinger (British Columbia Ministry of
    Forests)
  • Serguei Ponomarenko (NatureServe Canada)
  • Jean-Pierre Saucier (Ministère des Ressources
    naturelles, Québec)
  • UNITED STATES
  • Don Faber-Langendoen (NatureServe, co-chair)
  • Andy Gray (U.S. Forest Service)
  • Bruce Hoaglund (University of Oklahoma)
  • Sherm Karl (U.S. Bureau of Land Management)
  • Todd Keeler-Wolf (California Department of Fish
    and Game)
  • Greg Nowacki (U.S. Forest Service)
  • Dave Tart (U.S. Forest Service, co-chair)
  • Alan Weakley (University of North Carolina, N.C.
    Botanic Garden)
  • LATIN AMERICA
  • Otto Huber (Director of the COROLAB, Venezuela,
    Italy)
  • Carmen Josse (NatureServe)
  • Alejandro Velasquez Montes (Universidad Nacional
    Autónoma de México, Mexico)

9
Hierarchy Revision Schedule
Development Schedule
  • ?Develop guidelines for revision team (Nov. 2003)
  • ?Draft ideas for hierarchy revision (Dec.
    2003-June 30, 2004)
  • ?Internal testing period. (July-Sept. 2004)
  • ?Draft proposed hierarchy revision, report (Sept
    to Dec. 2004)
  • ?Partners peer review (Jan to March 2005)
  • ?Incorporate Comments and Revise (April to Dec
    2005)
  • - Submit revision to FGDC Veg Subcommittee
    (Jan-March 2006)
  • - Applications (testing)

10
Hierarchy Revisions
  • The Classification Standard

11
Why create a vegetation classification standard?
  • Organizes community / ecosystem patterns using
    readily observable vegetation properties
  • Provides practical conservation and resource
    management tools
  • Facilitates communication about vegetation
    (biodiversity)

12
Basic Principles Of The NVC
  • Develop a scientific, standardized
    classification, with practical use for
    conservation and resource management
  • Classify vegetation, using both physiognomic and
    floristic criteria.
  • based on ecologically meaningful relationships
  • organized by a hierarchy
  • Classify existing (actual), especially natural,
    vegetation
  • Describe types based on plot data (réleves),
    using publicly accessible data, wherever possible
  • Modify the classification through a structured
    peer review process.
  • Facilitate linkages to other classifications and
    to vegetation mapping (but the classification is
    not a map legend)

13
Historical Development of IVC
The Nature Conservancy begins developing an
international vegetation classification in 1980s,
using UNESCO 1973 (physiognomic floristic
approach). A TNC version of the USNVC is
published in 1998, then staff transfer to
NatureServe in 1999.  Federal Geographic Data
Committee (FGDC) in 1997 adopts a U.S. National
Vegetation Classification Standard - uses TNC /
UNESCO framework.  Floristic units of NatureServe
are provisional. Canada forms a Canadian NVC team
in 2000, emphasizes associations.  Ecological
Society in 2004 develops detailed guidelines for
floristic units (alliance and association).  FGDC
establishes Hierarchy Revisions Working Group to
revise physiognomic units. Report is due in 2006.
14
Hierarchy Revision Goals
  • PRIMARY GOALS
  • Develop an integrated physiognomic-floristic
    classification that
  • Creates a formal classification, with
    nomenclature, etc.
  • Organizes regional / continental floristic
    patterns
  • Emphasize vegetation criteria in the
    classification, while ensuring ecological
    meaningfulness of the units, based on abiotic and
    disturbance factors.
  • SECONDARY GOALS
  • Provide methods (modifiers) for describing
    physiognomy and structure for Stand (ground)
    description, or vegetation mapping
  • Provide guidelines for applications of
    classification, including mapping.

15
How to get there from here?
Hierarchy Revisions Proposed Structure - draft
New mid levels
8
ASSOCIATION
16
Hierarchy Revisions Five Major Recommendations.
  • Reorganize physiognomic (formation) levels
    (Levels 1-3) to reflect ecological groupings.
  • Separate cultural vegetation (corn fields,
    orchards, lawns, etc.) from natural /
    semi-natural vegetation as a higher categorical
    level.
  • Redefine wetland formations based on vegetation,
    not abiotic, criteria.
  • Define the mid-level units (Levels 4, 5, 6) based
    on both floristic and physiognomic criteria.
  • Separate semi-natural from natural vegetation
    at mid-levels.

17
HIERARCHY REVISIONS
  • RECOMMENDATION 1. Reorganize physiognomic
    (formation) levels (Levels 1-3) to reflect
    ecological groupings.
  • This recommendation follows from our basic
    principle
  • Classify vegetation, using both physiognomic and
    floristic criteria, based on ecologically
    meaningful relationships
  • Choice of vegetation criteria emphasizes
    ecological relations, not a step-wise breakdown
    of criteria.

18
A little history
  • Linnaeus grouped his species into genera, genera
    into orders, and orders into classes. He
    separated plants into classes, depending on the
    number and relative lengths of stamens in the
    flowers, dismissing all other systems of
    classification. This sexual system of
    classifying plants outraged, titillated and
    fascinated the reading public
  • The Linnaean sexual system was too artificial to
    stand the test of timeclassifying plants on the
    basis of a wide range of structural
    characteristics, and more recently on chemical
    ones, brought us a long way from a pile of
    unsorted species to some rational groupings
  • (From J. Silvertown 2005. Demons in Eden, pg.
    16-17)

19
Revision Recommendation 1
  • OLD MODEL (key-like)
  • Tree, (Shrub, Herb, NonVascular)
  • Broad leaved Needle-leaved
  • Deciduous Evergreen Deciduous Evergreen
  • Open Closed Open Closed Open
    Closed Open Closed
  • NEW MODEL (ecological)
  • Mesomorphic, Xeromorphic, Cryomorphic,
    Hydromorphic, Lithomorphic
  • But, the new model highlights the needs for keys
    to retain practical applications.

20
Forest Woodland (Mesomorphic)
Shrubland Grassland
Semi-Desert Vegetation (Xeromorphic Vegetation)
Aquatic Vegetation (Hydromorphic Vegetation)

Nonvascular Vegetation (Lithomorphic Vegetation)
Loiseleuria procumbens
Polar and High Mountain Vegetation (Cryomorphic
Vegetation)
CULTURAL VEGETATION
21
Ecoregions where Tropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
is or was the dominant vegetation
Map based on Olson et al. (2001), produced by M.
Jennings.
22
Ecoregions where Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed
Forest is or was the dominant vegetation
Map based on Olson et al. (2001), produced by M.
Jennings.
23
Distribution of major Formation Subclasses in
North America, based on the ecoregions where they
were or are the dominant vegetation.
Hawaiian Vegetation
The map is a simplified distribution map, based
on choosing the single most common formation
subclass that covered large expanses of a
particular ecoregion.
Map based on Olson et al. (2001), produced by M.
Jennings.
24
REVISION RECOMMENDATION 2 separate cultural
from natural vegetation
25
REVISION RECOMMENDATION 2 separate cultural
from natural vegetation
Eastern North America
NAT / SEMI-NAT VEG
CULTURAL NON- VEG
26
RECOMMENDED REVISION - 3
  • 3. Redefine wetland formations based on
    vegetation, not abiotic, criteria.
  • We redefined wetland formations at Level 3 into
    broad vegetation-based formation classes, rather
    than on technical distinctions of hydrology.
  • Classes are based on broad growth forms, which
    better reflect major kinds of wetland types
    (e.g., peatlands, marshes, swamps).

27
RECOMMENDED REVISION - 3
28
RECOMMENDED REVISION - 4
  • 4. Define the mid-level units (Levels 4 - 6)
    based on both floristic and physiognomic criteria.

By relying on a combination of floristic and
physiognomic criteria for mid-level hierarchy
units we provide the much-needed bridge between
world-scale formation units and local-regional
scale floristic units.
Many vegetation ecologists have developed and use
these kinds of mid-level units for assessing
broad vegetation patterns
29
RECOMMENDED REVISION 4mid-levels based on both
physiognomy and floristics
n.b. Map represents potential vegetation, based
on existing observations
30
Recommended Revision 4
L3-Form. L4-Division
L5-MacroGroup L6-Group
31
RECOMMENDED REVISION - 5
  • 5. Separate semi-natural vegetation at mid-level
  • We separate semi-natural vegetation (old fields,
    exotic pastures, forest plantations) from natural
    vegetation types at the mid level of the
    hierarchy (Level 5?), because semi-natural types
    are composed of a distinctive set of species.

32
Recommended Revision 5
L3-Form. L4-Division
L5-MacroGroup L6-Group
33
Hierarchy Revisions Five Major Recommendations.
  • Reorganize physiognomic (formation) levels
    (Levels 1-3) to reflect ecological criteria.
  • Separate cultural vegetation (corn fields,
    orchards, lawns, etc.) from natural /
    semi-natural vegetation as a higher categorical
    level.
  • Redefine wetland formations based on vegetation,
    not abiotic, criteria.
  • Define the mid-level units (Levels 4 6) based
    on both floristic and physiognomic criteria.
  • Separate semi-natural vegetation at mid-levels.

34
Implementing the HRWG Recommendations An example?
35
Yucatan Evergreen Forest
Cycling back to first principles the role of
multiple criteria
  • - medium semi-evergreen forest (selva mediana
    subperennifolia)
  • low semi-evergreen forest (selva bajo
    subperennifolia)
  • tall evergreen forest (selva alto perennifolia)
  • low evergreen forest (selva bajo perennifolia)

Calakmul
36
NEXT STEPS HRWG
  • HRWG submits report to FGDC clarify mandate
  • Were ready to write the classification standard
  • We need more work on field data collection
    standards
  • We need to pilot test / apply the revised
    standard.
  • - Next steps
  • Brief characterizations for Levels 1-4 and first
    steps towards a key
  • Draft units for Levels 5 and 6
  • Linkage of peer review process for alliance and
    association to upper levels.
  • Discussions with partners CNVC, MXNVC, other
    Latin American partners
  • Test applications of the hierarchy
  • Adoption process content standard vs process
    standard.
  • Role of ESA Panel.

37
NEXT STEPS HRWG
  • Option 1 Release a pilot revised classification
    standard by March of 2006 and test for a year
    before moving into standards review?
  • Have the FGDC Veg Subcommittee agree to promote
    it for the purposes of piloting (1 year?)
  • Review pilots and applications - Spring 2007?
  • Submit to FGDC Standards Group Fall 2007?
  • Work with ESA Panel on integrating peer review
    process into the standard.
  • Option 2. Release a pilot revised classification
    standard in September of 2006 and submit to
    standards review, recognizing that a peer review
    process will permit further change, based on
    pilots.

38
NEXT STEPS
NEXT STEPS
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com