Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Sears
VEGETATION MAPPING.Science, 53 1371
(1995)
A Sample Survey of the Flora of Britain and Ireland. The Botanical Society of the British Isles Monitoring Scheme
Stewart Thompson, J. Treweek, D. Thurling (1997)
The Ecological Component of Environmental Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of British Environmental StatementsJournal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40
A. Banner, D. Meidinger, E. Lea, R. Maxwell, B. Sacken (1996)
Ecosystem mapping methods for British ColumbiaEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39
J. Warnken, R. Buckley (1998)
Scientific quality of tourism environmental impact assessmentJournal of Applied Ecology, 35
D. Allen, Lesney Cottage (1981)
Sources of error in local lists
(1975)
Five years of a county Flora project
(1995)
An investigation of uncertainty in ®eld habitat mapping and the implications for detecting land cover change
T. Reichhardt (1999)
‘Inadequate science’ in US habitat plansNature, 397
Marie-Louise Smith, C. Carpenter (1996)
Application of the USDA Forest Service National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units at the sub-regional level: The New England-New York exampleEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39
G. Beanlands, P. Duinker (1983)
AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN CANADA.
T. Rich, Paul Smith (1996)
Botanical recording, distribution maps and species frequency
P. Uhlig, J. Jordan (1996)
A spatial hierarchical framework for the co-management of ecosystems in Canada and the United States for the upper Great Lakes regionEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39
Poore Poore (1955)
The use of phytosociological methods in ecological methods. III. Practical applications.Journal of Ecology, 43
D. Bajzak, Bruce Roberts (1996)
Development of Ecological Land Classification and mapping in support of forest management in northern Newfoundland, CanadaEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39
(1989)
Computerised matching of releves and association tables, with an application to the British National Vegetation Classi®cation
P. Harding (1991)
National species distribution surveys
J. Treweek (1996)
Ecology and environmental impact assessmentJournal of Applied Ecology, 33
(1995)
Nature Conservancy Council (1990) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey
J. Rodwell, C. Pigott, D. Ratcliffe, A. Malloch, H. Birks, M. Proctor (2000)
British Plant Communities: British Plant Communities
P. Harding (1992)
Biological recording of changes in British wildlife
G. Beanlands, P. Duinker (1984)
An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact AssessmentJournal of Environmental Management, 18
M. Poore (1955)
The Use of Phytosociological Methods in Ecological Investigations: III. Practical ApplicationJournal of Ecology, 43
(1991)
A Review of Phase 1 Habitat Survey in England
M. Story, R. Congalton (1986)
Accuracy assessment: a user's perspectivePhotogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 52
A. Küchler (1988)
The Classification of Vegetation
B. Williams (1996)
Assessment of Accuracy in the Mapping of Vertebrate BiodiversityJournal of Environmental Management, 47
J. Wallwork, T. Southwood (1967)
Ecological Methods with particular reference to the study of insect populationsPedobiologia
A. Küchler (1988)
Küchler’s Comprehensive Method
C. Stace (1998)
New Flora Of The British Isles
D. Hanson, Bryan Hargrave (1996)
Development of a multilevel Ecological Classification System for the state of MinnesotaEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39
(1993)
Quality in ecological assessments
Summary 1. In the UK, Phase 1 survey is a standard method of habitat mapping that has been used widely for environmental assessment and management planning. In this paper we make the first rigorous test of the precision with which environmental consultants apply the technique. 2. Six ecologists surveyed independently the same upland site in northern England. In pairwise comparisons between maps, spatial agreement was found to average 25·6% (with a range of 17·3–38·8%) of the area of the study site. The numbers of land cover types that were identified ranged from 13 to 21. Four or more surveyors agreed on the classification of 19% of the study site, while the area of land upon which all six agreed was only 7·9% of the study site. Spatial errors in the positioning of habitat boundaries occurred, but were a relatively minor source of the differences between maps. The majority of differences between maps were due to classification errors. Land cover types with similar species compositions were most frequently confused. 3. Spatially referenced field ‘target notes’ giving additional information on the vegetation mapped in each survey varied in number between 18 and 56. The contents of target notes were inadequate to allow a retrospective assessment of mapping decisions. The total numbers of species listed in target notes varied between surveys from 25 to 145. Sorenson's similarity for species lists derived from pairs of surveys ranged from 18·8% to 63·7%, and was not related to spatial agreement between surveys. 4. Time spent at the field site was not a correlate of any aspect of the results or cost of the survey. Three surveys conducted by members of a professional institute for ecologists were the most expensive, and also recorded larger numbers of target notes and species than the other surveys. However, their maps were no more similar than other pairs of maps. 5. Analysis of the survey results and comparisons with other methods of vegetation mapping suggest that mapping precision could be increased by (i) placing a greater emphasis on use of aerial photographs and other extant map data prior to (and during) field work; (ii) making greater provision for mapping of mosaics and increasing the level of floristic information in habitat definitions; (iii) recording a greater number of more detailed target notes in the field; and (iv) providing office‐based support to assist in the interpretation of aerial photographs, and the cross‐checking of field surveyors’ preliminary classifications against the contents of target notes and habitat definitions. The current application of the Phase 1 approach by environmental consultants places too great a reliance on decision‐making by the (frequently) unsupported lone surveyor whilst in the field.
Journal of Applied Ecology – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 1999
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.