106
General Data Collection and Sampling Design Considerations
the AGI 1995 conference; Birmingham. London, UK:
Association for Geographic Information: 1.41-1.45.
Neave, H. M.; Norton, T. W.; Nix, H. A. 1996. Biological inventory for conservation evaluation I. design of
a field survey for diurnal, terrestrial birds in southern
Australia. For. Eco!. Manage. 85:107-122.
Neave, H. M.; Cunningham, R. B.; Norton, T. W.; Nix,
H. A. 1997. Preliminary evaluation of sampling strategies to estimate the species richness of diurnal birds
using Monte Carlo simulation. Eco!. Mode!. 95: 17-27.
Neldner, V. J.; Crossley, D. C.; Cofinas, M. 1995. Using geographic information systems (GIS) to determine the adequacy of sampling in vegetation surveys.
Bioi. Conserv. 73(1):1-17.
Nicholls, A. O. 1989. How to make biological surveys
go further with generalised linear models. BioI. Conservo 50:51-75.
Nicholls, A. O. 1991a. Examples of the use of generalized linear models in analysis of survey data for conservation evaluation. In: Margules, C. R.; Austin, M.
P., eds. Nature conservation: cost effective biological
surveys and data analysis. Melbourne: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: 54-63.
Nicholls, A. O. 1991b. An introduction to statistical
modelling using GUM. In: Margules, C. R.; Austin,
M. P., eds. Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. Melbourne: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: 191-201.
O'Hara, K. L.; Latham, P. A.; Hessburg, P.; Smith,
B. G. 1996. A structural classification for Inland
Northwest forest vegetation. W. 1. Appl. For.
11(3):97-102.
Ohmann, J. L.; Spies, T. A. 1998. Regional gradient
analysis and spatial pattern of woody plant communities of Oregon forests. Eco!. Monogr. 68(2):151-182.
O'Neill, R. V.; Jones, K. B.; Riitters, K. H.; Wickham,
J. D.; Goodman, I. A. 1994. Landscape monitoring
and assessment research plan. Report 620/R-94/009.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency.
Orl6ci, L. 1978. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk.
Pielou, E. C. 1974. Population and community ecology.
New York: Gordon and Breach.
Podani, J.; Czanm, T.; Bartha, S. 1993. Pattern, area and
diversity: the importance of spatial scale in species assemblages. Abstracta Botanica 17:37-51.
Pressey, R. L.; Nicholls, A. O. 1991. Reserve selection
in the Western Division of New South Wales: development of a new procedure based on land system mapping. In: Margules, C. R.; Austin, M. P., eds. Nature
conservation: cost effective biological surveys and
data analysis. Melbourne: Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization: 98-105.
Quattrochi, D. A.; Goodchild, M. F., editors. 1997. Scale
in remote sensing and GIS. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis
Publishers.
Quigley, T. M.; Arbelbide, S. J., editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great
Basins: Volume I. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S.
Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.
Reed, R. A.; Peet, R. K.; Palmer, M. W.; White, P. S.
1993. Scale dependence of vegetation-environment
correlations: a case study of a North Carolina piedmont woodland. 1. Veg. Sci. 4:329-340.
Reid, M. S.; Bourgeron, P. S.; Humphries, H. c.; Jensen,
M. E. 1995. Documentation of the modeling ofpotential vegetation at three spatial scales using biophysical settings in the Columbia River basin. Unpublished
report prepared for the U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo
Boulder, CO: Western Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy. On file with: Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla,
WA.
Running, S. W.; Nemani, R. R.; Peterson, D. L.; Band,
L. E.; Potts, D. F.; Pierce, L. L.; Spanner, M. A. 1989.
Mapping regional forest evapotranspiration and photosynthesis by coupling satellite data with ecosystem
simulation. Ecology 70:1090-1101.
Schneider, D. C. 1994. Quantitative ecology-spatial
and temporal scaling. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Scott, J. M.; Jennings, M. D. 1997. A description of
the national gap analysis program. http://www.gap.
uidaho.edu/gap/AboutGAP/GapDescription/Index.htm.
Scott, J. M.; Jennings, M. D. 1998. Large-area mapping
of biodiversity. Ann. Missouri Botanical Garden
85(1):34-47.
Scott, J. M.; Csuti, B.; Smith, K.; Estes, J. E.; Caicco, S.
1990. Gap analysis of species richness and vegetation
cover: an integrated conservation strategy for the
preservation of biological diversity. In: Kohn, K. A.,
ed. Balancing on the brink: a retrospective on the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Scott, J. M.; Davis, F.; Csuti, B.; Noss, R.; Butterfield,
B.; Groves, c.; Anderson, H.; Caicco, S.; D'Erchia,
F.; Edwards, T. c.; Ulliman, J.; Wright, R. G. 1993.
Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of
biological diversity. Wildlife Monogr. 123:1-41.
Shevock, J. R. 1996. Status ofrare and endemic plants.
In: Assessments and scientific basis for management
options. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Volume II. Davis, CA: Centers for
Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: 691-706.
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). 1996. Final
report to Congress, assessments and scientific basis
for management options. Davis, CA: Center for Water and Wildlands Resources, University of California.
Skinner, M. W.; Pavlik, B. M., editors. 1994. Inventory
of rare and endangered vascular plants of California.
Special Publication 1, 5th ed. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB).
1996. The Southern Appalachian assessment summary
report. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv.,
Southern Region.
Stohlgren, T. J. 1994. Planning long-term vegetation
General Data Collection and Sampling Design Considerations
the AGI 1995 conference; Birmingham. London, UK:
Association for Geographic Information: 1.41-1.45.
Neave, H. M.; Norton, T. W.; Nix, H. A. 1996. Biological inventory for conservation evaluation I. design of
a field survey for diurnal, terrestrial birds in southern
Australia. For. Eco!. Manage. 85:107-122.
Neave, H. M.; Cunningham, R. B.; Norton, T. W.; Nix,
H. A. 1997. Preliminary evaluation of sampling strategies to estimate the species richness of diurnal birds
using Monte Carlo simulation. Eco!. Mode!. 95: 17-27.
Neldner, V. J.; Crossley, D. C.; Cofinas, M. 1995. Using geographic information systems (GIS) to determine the adequacy of sampling in vegetation surveys.
Bioi. Conserv. 73(1):1-17.
Nicholls, A. O. 1989. How to make biological surveys
go further with generalised linear models. BioI. Conservo 50:51-75.
Nicholls, A. O. 1991a. Examples of the use of generalized linear models in analysis of survey data for conservation evaluation. In: Margules, C. R.; Austin, M.
P., eds. Nature conservation: cost effective biological
surveys and data analysis. Melbourne: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: 54-63.
Nicholls, A. O. 1991b. An introduction to statistical
modelling using GUM. In: Margules, C. R.; Austin,
M. P., eds. Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. Melbourne: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: 191-201.
O'Hara, K. L.; Latham, P. A.; Hessburg, P.; Smith,
B. G. 1996. A structural classification for Inland
Northwest forest vegetation. W. 1. Appl. For.
11(3):97-102.
Ohmann, J. L.; Spies, T. A. 1998. Regional gradient
analysis and spatial pattern of woody plant communities of Oregon forests. Eco!. Monogr. 68(2):151-182.
O'Neill, R. V.; Jones, K. B.; Riitters, K. H.; Wickham,
J. D.; Goodman, I. A. 1994. Landscape monitoring
and assessment research plan. Report 620/R-94/009.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency.
Orl6ci, L. 1978. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk.
Pielou, E. C. 1974. Population and community ecology.
New York: Gordon and Breach.
Podani, J.; Czanm, T.; Bartha, S. 1993. Pattern, area and
diversity: the importance of spatial scale in species assemblages. Abstracta Botanica 17:37-51.
Pressey, R. L.; Nicholls, A. O. 1991. Reserve selection
in the Western Division of New South Wales: development of a new procedure based on land system mapping. In: Margules, C. R.; Austin, M. P., eds. Nature
conservation: cost effective biological surveys and
data analysis. Melbourne: Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization: 98-105.
Quattrochi, D. A.; Goodchild, M. F., editors. 1997. Scale
in remote sensing and GIS. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis
Publishers.
Quigley, T. M.; Arbelbide, S. J., editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great
Basins: Volume I. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S.
Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.
Reed, R. A.; Peet, R. K.; Palmer, M. W.; White, P. S.
1993. Scale dependence of vegetation-environment
correlations: a case study of a North Carolina piedmont woodland. 1. Veg. Sci. 4:329-340.
Reid, M. S.; Bourgeron, P. S.; Humphries, H. c.; Jensen,
M. E. 1995. Documentation of the modeling ofpotential vegetation at three spatial scales using biophysical settings in the Columbia River basin. Unpublished
report prepared for the U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo
Boulder, CO: Western Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy. On file with: Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla,
WA.
Running, S. W.; Nemani, R. R.; Peterson, D. L.; Band,
L. E.; Potts, D. F.; Pierce, L. L.; Spanner, M. A. 1989.
Mapping regional forest evapotranspiration and photosynthesis by coupling satellite data with ecosystem
simulation. Ecology 70:1090-1101.
Schneider, D. C. 1994. Quantitative ecology-spatial
and temporal scaling. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Scott, J. M.; Jennings, M. D. 1997. A description of
the national gap analysis program. http://www.gap.
uidaho.edu/gap/AboutGAP/GapDescription/Index.htm.
Scott, J. M.; Jennings, M. D. 1998. Large-area mapping
of biodiversity. Ann. Missouri Botanical Garden
85(1):34-47.
Scott, J. M.; Csuti, B.; Smith, K.; Estes, J. E.; Caicco, S.
1990. Gap analysis of species richness and vegetation
cover: an integrated conservation strategy for the
preservation of biological diversity. In: Kohn, K. A.,
ed. Balancing on the brink: a retrospective on the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Scott, J. M.; Davis, F.; Csuti, B.; Noss, R.; Butterfield,
B.; Groves, c.; Anderson, H.; Caicco, S.; D'Erchia,
F.; Edwards, T. c.; Ulliman, J.; Wright, R. G. 1993.
Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of
biological diversity. Wildlife Monogr. 123:1-41.
Shevock, J. R. 1996. Status ofrare and endemic plants.
In: Assessments and scientific basis for management
options. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Volume II. Davis, CA: Centers for
Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: 691-706.
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). 1996. Final
report to Congress, assessments and scientific basis
for management options. Davis, CA: Center for Water and Wildlands Resources, University of California.
Skinner, M. W.; Pavlik, B. M., editors. 1994. Inventory
of rare and endangered vascular plants of California.
Special Publication 1, 5th ed. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB).
1996. The Southern Appalachian assessment summary
report. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv.,
Southern Region.
Stohlgren, T. J. 1994. Planning long-term vegetation