24.8 References
presented, it is apparent that there is no one universally accepted method for identifying aquatic
biophysical environments. This is not surprising
given the fact that ecosystem classifications are human constructs; they only have value if they assist
us in understanding complex biophysical environments and aid us in conserving our natural resource
base while meeting societal expectations (Jensen et
al., 1996). Accordingly, we should expect many
schemes for aquatic system classification, given the
large variety of issues and spatial scales of assessment such classifications must address. To assist
such efforts, the following key points should be
considered when designing aquatic ecological classifications or maps for multiscale ecological assessments.
1. The major issues that must be addressed in an
ecological assessment determine the appropriate level of classification, data resolution, interpretations, and mapping scale of an ecological
unit.
2. Depending on the issues being addressed and resultant interpretation needs, a given assessment
may require more than one classification or map
of biophysical environments.
3. Definition of an ecological map unit is driven
by the finer-scale ecological patterns and processes it is supposed to predict; these patterns
and processes must be clearly articulated to facilitate subsequent map unit design (identification of mapping unit differentia) and testing of
mapping unit accuracy.
24.7 Recommended Reading
Frissell, C. A; Liss, W. J.; Warren, C. E.; Hurley, M. D.
1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat
classification: viewing streams in a watershed context.
Environ. Manage. 10(2):199-214.
Gregory, S. V.; Swanson, F. J.; McKee, W. A; Cummins, K. W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540-551.
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P.; Everett, R.; Goodman, I.
1996. Ecosystem management: a landscape ecology
perspective. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 32:
203-216.
Lotspeich, F. B. 1980. Watersheds as the basic ecosystem: this conceptual framework provides a basis for a
natural classification system. Water Resources Bull.
16(4):581-586.
Maxwell, J. R.; Edwards, C. J.; Jensen, M. E.; Paustian,
S. J.; Parrot, H.; Hill, D. M. 1995. A hierarchical
framework of aquatic ecological units in North America. GTR-NC-176. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. Agric.,
For. Serv., North Central For. Exp. Sta.
363
Naiman, R. J.; Lozarich, D. G.; Beechie, T. J.; Ralph,
S. C. 1992. General principles of classification and the
assessment of conservation potential. In: Boon, P. J.;
Caloa, P.; Petts, G. E., eds. River conservation and
management. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 93-123.
24.8 References
Allen, T. F. H.; Starr, T. B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Allen, T. F. H.; Hoekstra, T. W.; O'Neill, R. V. 1984.
Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy theory. GTR-RM-110. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept.
Agric., For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Sta.
Anon. 1959. Symposium on the classification of brackish waters. Venice, April 8-14, 1958. Archivio di
Oceanografia e Limnologia, Vol. 11 Supplemento.
Bailey, R. G. 1980. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the
United States. Misc. Publ. 1391. Washington, DC:
U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo
Bailey. R. G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions.
Environ. Manage. 7(4):365-373.
Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the
United States, 2nd ed., rev. and expanded (1st ed.
1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (rev.). Washington, DC:
U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo
Bailey, R. G.; Jensen, M. E.; Cleland, D. T.; Bourgeron,
P. S. 1994. Design and use of ecological mapping
units. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., eds. Ecosystem management: principles and applications. GTRPNW-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv.,
Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 101-112.
Baxter, C. V.; Frissell, C. A; Hauer, F. R. (2001). Geomorphology, logging roads, and the distribution of bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning in a forested
river basin: implications for management and conservation. Trans. Amer. Fisheries Soc.
Bayley, P. B.; Li, H. W. 1992. Riverine fishes. In: Calow,
P.; Petts, G. E., eds. The rivers handbook. London:
Blackwell Scientific Publications: 251-281.
Bisson, P. A.; Nielsen, J. L.; Palmason, R. A; Grove,
L. E. 1982. A system of naming habitat types in small
streams, with examples of habitat utilization by
salmonids during low streamflow. In: Armentrout,
N. B., ed. Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information: Proceedings; October
28-30, 1981, Portland, OR. West. Div. Amer. Fisheries Soc.: 62-73.
Bourgeron, P. S.; Jensen, M. E. 1994. An overview of
ecological principles for ecosystem management. In:
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., eds. Ecosystem management: principles and applications. GTR-PNW318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 49-60.
Bourgeron, P. S.; Humphries, H. C.; DeVelice, R. L.;
Jensen, M. E. 1994. Ecological theory in relation to
landscape evaluation and ecosystem characterization.
presented, it is apparent that there is no one universally accepted method for identifying aquatic
biophysical environments. This is not surprising
given the fact that ecosystem classifications are human constructs; they only have value if they assist
us in understanding complex biophysical environments and aid us in conserving our natural resource
base while meeting societal expectations (Jensen et
al., 1996). Accordingly, we should expect many
schemes for aquatic system classification, given the
large variety of issues and spatial scales of assessment such classifications must address. To assist
such efforts, the following key points should be
considered when designing aquatic ecological classifications or maps for multiscale ecological assessments.
1. The major issues that must be addressed in an
ecological assessment determine the appropriate level of classification, data resolution, interpretations, and mapping scale of an ecological
unit.
2. Depending on the issues being addressed and resultant interpretation needs, a given assessment
may require more than one classification or map
of biophysical environments.
3. Definition of an ecological map unit is driven
by the finer-scale ecological patterns and processes it is supposed to predict; these patterns
and processes must be clearly articulated to facilitate subsequent map unit design (identification of mapping unit differentia) and testing of
mapping unit accuracy.
24.7 Recommended Reading
Frissell, C. A; Liss, W. J.; Warren, C. E.; Hurley, M. D.
1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat
classification: viewing streams in a watershed context.
Environ. Manage. 10(2):199-214.
Gregory, S. V.; Swanson, F. J.; McKee, W. A; Cummins, K. W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540-551.
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P.; Everett, R.; Goodman, I.
1996. Ecosystem management: a landscape ecology
perspective. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 32:
203-216.
Lotspeich, F. B. 1980. Watersheds as the basic ecosystem: this conceptual framework provides a basis for a
natural classification system. Water Resources Bull.
16(4):581-586.
Maxwell, J. R.; Edwards, C. J.; Jensen, M. E.; Paustian,
S. J.; Parrot, H.; Hill, D. M. 1995. A hierarchical
framework of aquatic ecological units in North America. GTR-NC-176. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. Agric.,
For. Serv., North Central For. Exp. Sta.
363
Naiman, R. J.; Lozarich, D. G.; Beechie, T. J.; Ralph,
S. C. 1992. General principles of classification and the
assessment of conservation potential. In: Boon, P. J.;
Caloa, P.; Petts, G. E., eds. River conservation and
management. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 93-123.
24.8 References
Allen, T. F. H.; Starr, T. B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Allen, T. F. H.; Hoekstra, T. W.; O'Neill, R. V. 1984.
Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy theory. GTR-RM-110. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept.
Agric., For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Sta.
Anon. 1959. Symposium on the classification of brackish waters. Venice, April 8-14, 1958. Archivio di
Oceanografia e Limnologia, Vol. 11 Supplemento.
Bailey, R. G. 1980. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the
United States. Misc. Publ. 1391. Washington, DC:
U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo
Bailey. R. G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions.
Environ. Manage. 7(4):365-373.
Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the
United States, 2nd ed., rev. and expanded (1st ed.
1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (rev.). Washington, DC:
U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo
Bailey, R. G.; Jensen, M. E.; Cleland, D. T.; Bourgeron,
P. S. 1994. Design and use of ecological mapping
units. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., eds. Ecosystem management: principles and applications. GTRPNW-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv.,
Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 101-112.
Baxter, C. V.; Frissell, C. A; Hauer, F. R. (2001). Geomorphology, logging roads, and the distribution of bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning in a forested
river basin: implications for management and conservation. Trans. Amer. Fisheries Soc.
Bayley, P. B.; Li, H. W. 1992. Riverine fishes. In: Calow,
P.; Petts, G. E., eds. The rivers handbook. London:
Blackwell Scientific Publications: 251-281.
Bisson, P. A.; Nielsen, J. L.; Palmason, R. A; Grove,
L. E. 1982. A system of naming habitat types in small
streams, with examples of habitat utilization by
salmonids during low streamflow. In: Armentrout,
N. B., ed. Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information: Proceedings; October
28-30, 1981, Portland, OR. West. Div. Amer. Fisheries Soc.: 62-73.
Bourgeron, P. S.; Jensen, M. E. 1994. An overview of
ecological principles for ecosystem management. In:
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., eds. Ecosystem management: principles and applications. GTR-PNW318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 49-60.
Bourgeron, P. S.; Humphries, H. C.; DeVelice, R. L.;
Jensen, M. E. 1994. Ecological theory in relation to
landscape evaluation and ecosystem characterization.