Title: A Revised U'S' National Vegetation Classification Standard: Progress and Next Steps
1A 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
2Revised 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
3Revised 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
4Revised 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
5Revised 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
6Revised 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
7Revised 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?
8Hierarchy 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)
9Hierarchy 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)
10Hierarchy Revisions
- The Classification Standard
11Why 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)
12Basic 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)
13Historical 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.
14Hierarchy 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.
15How to get there from here?
Hierarchy Revisions Proposed Structure - draft
New mid levels
8
ASSOCIATION
16Hierarchy 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.
17HIERARCHY 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.
18A 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)
19Revision 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.
20Forest 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
21Ecoregions where Tropical Moist Broadleaf Forest
is or was the dominant vegetation
Map based on Olson et al. (2001), produced by M.
Jennings.
22Ecoregions where Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed
Forest is or was the dominant vegetation
Map based on Olson et al. (2001), produced by M.
Jennings.
23Distribution 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.
24REVISION RECOMMENDATION 2 separate cultural
from natural vegetation
25REVISION RECOMMENDATION 2 separate cultural
from natural vegetation
Eastern North America
NAT / SEMI-NAT VEG
CULTURAL NON- VEG
26RECOMMENDED 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). -
27RECOMMENDED REVISION - 3
28RECOMMENDED 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
29RECOMMENDED REVISION 4mid-levels based on both
physiognomy and floristics
n.b. Map represents potential vegetation, based
on existing observations
30Recommended Revision 4
L3-Form. L4-Division
L5-MacroGroup L6-Group
31RECOMMENDED 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.
32Recommended Revision 5
L3-Form. L4-Division
L5-MacroGroup L6-Group
33Hierarchy 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.
34Implementing the HRWG Recommendations An example?
35Yucatan 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
36NEXT 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.
37NEXT 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.
38NEXT STEPS
NEXT STEPS