Is what you see what you get? Visual vs. measured assessments of vegetation condition

Journal of Applied Ecology

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 650-661

  Cook, Carly N ^a   Wardell Johnson, Grant ^b   Keatley, Marie ^c   Gowans, Stacey A ^d   Gibson, Matthew S ^d   Westbrooke, Martin E ^d   Marshall, Dustin J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c Parks Victoria   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT   (Australia)

Author keywords

Environmental management; Expert opinion; Ocular assessment; Rapid condition assessment; Subjective judgement

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; NATURE CONSERVATION; SATELLITE IMAGERY; SURROGATE METHOD; VEGETATION STRUCTURE;

EID: 77952814908     PISSN: 00218901     EISSN: 13652664     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01803.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Archaux F, Berges L, Chevalier R. Are plant censuses carried out on small quadrats more reliable than on larger ones? Plant Ecology 2007, 188:179-190.
2. Beck RN, Gessler PE. Development of a Landsat time series for application in forest status assessment in the Inland Northwest United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2008, 23:53-62.
3. Booth GD, Niccolucci MJ, Schuster EG. Indentifying Proxy Sets in Multiple Linear Regression: An Aid to Better Coefficient Interpretation 1994, Research Paper INT-470, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA
4. Burgman MA. Flaws in subjective assessments of ecological risks and means for correcting them. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 2001, 8:219-226.
5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2002, 2nd edn, Springer, New York, USA
6. Cherrill AJ, McClean C, Lane A, Fuller RM. A comparison of land-cover types in an ecological field survey in Northern England and a remotely-sensed land-cover map of Great Britain. Biological Conservation 1995, 71:313-323.
7. Cohen MJ, Lane CR, Reiss KC, Surdick JA, Bardi E, Brown MT. Vegetation based classification trees for rapid assessment of isolated wetland condition. Ecological Indicators 2005, 5:189-206.
8. Summary of the Second Global Biodiversity Outlook 2006, United Nations Environment Program, Caritiba, Brazil
9. Programme of Work on Protected Areas 2004, In Vol. 2006. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme
10. Dahms CW, Geils BW. An Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Health in the Southwest 1997, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, USA
11. Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual - Guidelines for Applying the Habitat Hectares Scoring Method Version 1.3 2004, Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne, Victoria
12. Gibbons P, Freudenberger D. An overview of methods used to assess vegetation condition at the scale of the site. Ecological Management & Restoration 2006, 7:S10-S17.
13. Gibbons P, Ayers D, Seddon J, Doyle S, Briggs S. BioMetric Version 1.8: A Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment Tool for the NSW Property Vegetation Plan Developer. Operational Manual 2005, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville, New South Wales
14. Gibbons P, Briggs SV, Ayers DA, Doyle S, Seddon J, McElhinny C, Jones N, Sims R, Doody JS. Rapidly quantifying reference conditions in modified landscapes. Biological Conservation 2008, 141:2483-2493.
15. Gorrod E, Keith D. Observer variation in field assessments of vegetation condition: implications for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Management & Restoration 2009, 10:31-40.
16. Hargiss CLM, DeKeyser ES, Kirby DR, Ell MJ. Regional assessment of wetland plant communities using the index of plant community integrity. Ecological Indicators 2008, 8:303-307.
17. Helm DJ, Mead BR. Reproducibility of vegetation cover estimates in south-central Alaska forests. Journal of Vegetation Science 2004, 15:33-40.
18. Hockings M, Cook CN, Carter RW, James R. Accountability, reporting or management improvement? Development of a State of the Parks assessment system in New South Wales, Australia. Environmental Management 2009, 43:1013-1025.
19. James AN, Gaston KJ, Balmford A. Balancing the Earth's accounts. Nature 1999, 401:323-324.
20. Jensen ME, Redmond RL, Dibenedetto JP, Bourgeron PS, Goodman IA. Application of ecological classification and predictive vegetation modeling to broad-level assessments of ecosystem health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2000, 64:197-212.
21. ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R. Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience and the Business Case 2004, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Insight Investment, London, UK
22. Keddy PA, Drummond CG. Ecological properties for the evaluation, management, and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 1996, 6:748-762.
23. Keith D, Gorrod E. The meanings of vegetation condition. Ecological Management & Restoration 2006, 7:S7-S9.
24. Landres PB, Morgan P, Swanson FJ. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 1999, 9:1179-1188.
25. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Surveys 1990, Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK
26. State of the Parks 2004 2005, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney, New South Wales
27. Oliver I, Ede A, Hawes W, Grieve A. The NSW Environmental Services Scheme: results for the biodiversity benefits index, lessons learned and the way forward. Ecological Management & Restoration 2005, 6:197-205.
28. Oliver I, Jones H, Schmoldt DL. Expert panel assessment of attributes for natural variability benchmarks for biodiversity. Austral Ecology 2007, 32:453-475.
29. Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the 'habitat hectares' approach. Ecological Management & Restoration 2003, 4:S29-S38.
30. Parsons DJ, Swetnam TW, Christensen NL. Uses and limitations of historical variability concepts in managing ecosystems. Ecological Applications 1999, 9:1177-1178.
31. Regan HM, Colyvan M, Burgman MA. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 2002, 12:618-628.
32. Rooney TP, Rogers DA. The modified floristic quality index. Natural Areas Journal 2002, 22:340-344.
33. Sheil D. Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: realities, priorities, and distractions. Conservation Biology 2001, 15:1179-1182.
34. Conservation Reserve Program Sign-Up 26: Environmental Benefits Index 2003, United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, DC, USA
35. Rapid Assessment for Vegetation Condition: Development and Trial Techniques 2001, Centre for Environmental Management, University of Ballarat, Victoria