The Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Approach:                     an ecological framework for vegetation classification

MacKenzie, William H.; Meidinger, D.

doi:10.1127/phyto/2017/0160

Cited by 33 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Differentiating communities is often based on abundance (De Cáceres et al., ) and may be described, as in this study, by unquantified concepts of dominant and sub‐dominant species (ESCAVI, ; Gellie et al., ; Guo et al., ; MacKenzie & Meidinger, ). The communities from un‐supervised analysis had higher proportions of characterising species (Sharpness), which were less likely to be shared across communities (Uniqueness) because un‐supervised analysis can consistently apply abundance thresholds, quantifying dominant and subdominant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supervised versus un‐supervised classification: A quantitative comparison of plant communities in savanna vegetation

Addicott

Laurance

2019

Applied Vegetation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Question:What are the differences between plant communities recognised using supervised versus un-supervised methods?Location: Northeastern Australia.Methods: Two classifications of savanna plant communities were formed independently with two different approaches: supervised and un-supervised (using agglomerative hierarchical clustering). Each approach used the same vegetation datasets and, importantly, classification criteria. The communities occur on two different landscapes, with differing environmental gradients, covering an area of 53,500 km 2 . We compared the internal characteristics of plant communities between approaches and landscapes using four evaluation criteria: identifiability, distinctiveness, similarity of internal heterogeneity and predictability of species foliage cover. Additionally, we compared the central floristic concepts and compositional boundaries of communities identified by each approach.Results: Supervised and un-supervised approaches recognised similar floristic community concepts. Compositional boundaries between communities were similar on the landscape with steeper environmental gradients but significantly different on the landscape with gradual environmental gradients. However, communities distinguished using supervised methods were significantly less distinct and identifiable, worse at predicting species foliage cover and significantly more variable in species composition than those identified using un-supervised methods. Conclusions:Using supervised rather than un-supervised approaches to distinguish plant communities can result in less recognisable communities, possibly reducing their usefulness for land management planning. Importantly, we found a large disparity between the two approaches in delineating compositional boundaries between communities on landscapes with gradual environmental gradients. This is particularly relevant to communities in biomes such as the savanna which comprises 20% of the Earth's landmass. Ecologists can be more confident using a supervised approach on landscapes with steep environmental gradients but should target landscapes with gradual environmental gradients for un-supervised classification.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supervised versus un‐supervised classification: A quantitative comparison of plant communities in savanna vegetation

Addicott

Laurance

2019

Applied Vegetation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To develop the CASBEC for Subarctic and Arctic ecological communities, we have adopted approaches developed by the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) system of British Columbia (Pojar et al, 1987;Meidinger and Pojar, 1991;MacKenzie and Meidinger, 2018), and more recently by Environment Yukon (2016) in the Yukon. The CASBEC (Fig.…”

Section: Canadian Arctic-subarctic Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classificmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The classification of plant communities has a long academic history in Europe (Shimwell, 1971;Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974) and has been broadly applied across North America (Whittaker, 1962(Whittaker, , 1973CNVC, 2015;USNVC, 2016). The CASBEC uses vegetation classification approaches as outlined in MacKenzie and Meidinger (2018) to generate working units, which are linked to standards in the CNVC and USNVC (Jennings et al, 2004(Jennings et al, , 2009). To generate a classification for an area of study, relevés are collected, with replication, from the range of observed plant communities and sites within an area of study.…”

Section: Vegetation Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table analysis approaches with the assistance of ordination and other techniques are used to group plots with similar plant communities into plant associations defined by specific diagnostic species and a defined range in habitat and vegetation physiognomy (Shimwell, 1971;Ellenberg 1988). As other local or regional classifications are created, plant associations from each are compared and combined together in a process termed correlation to create a larger geographic scope and linkages for national plant associations (MacKenzie and Meidinger, 2018). The plant association units can be scaled up and related to each other through broader functional levels based on floristic/ecological similarity (BEC/AVC) or functional/spatial factors through a combination of floristics, dominance, physiognomy, and biogeography (USNVC, 2016) ( Fig.…”

Section: Vegetation Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Led by the Canadian Forest Service, the CNVC involves a partnership of federal, provincial, and territorial vegetation classification practitioners in Canada. Until recently, CNVC work focussed on forest ecosystem classification, but funding provided under the International Polar Year, and more recently by the Yukon Government and Polar Knowledge Canada, has resulted in the development of draft vegetation classifications for both Subarctic and Arctic vegetation communities in the Canadian North (Lévesque et al, 2013;MacKenzie and Meidinger, 2018). Arctic and Subarctic work under the CNVC is the Canadian contribution to the circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Archive (AVA) and Arctic Vegetation Classification (AVC), which are initiatives designed to consolidate vegetation data and classifications in member nations around the Arctic (Walker et al, 1994(Walker et al, , 2005(Walker et al, , 2018Walker and Raynolds, 2011;Walker, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Standardized Ecosystem Classification for the Coordination and Design of Long-term Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring in Arctic-Subarctic Biomes

McLennan¹,

MacKenzie²,

Meidinger³

et al. 2018

ARCTIC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Canadian Arctic-Subarctic Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (CASBEC) is proposed as a standardized classification approach for Subarctic and Arctic terrestrial ecosystems across Canada and potentially throughout the circumpolar area. The CASBEC is grounded in long-standing terrestrial ecosystem classification theory and builds on concepts developed for ecosystems in British Columbia, Quebec, and Yukon. The fundamental classification unit of the CASBEC, the plant association, is compatible with the lower-level classifications of the Arctic Vegetation Classification (AVC), the Canadian National Vegetation Classification (CNVC), and the United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) and is used to generate a classification and nomenclature for Arctic and Subarctic terrestrial ecological communities. The use of a multi-scalar ecosystem framework, such as that developed by the British Columbia Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification, provides an ecological context to use classified plant associations to delineate and define climatically equivalent regional scale climate units (biogeoclimatic subzones) and ecologically equivalent local-scale site units within biogeoclimatic subzones. A standardized framework and taxonomy of ecosystem classification for Subarctic and Arctic terrestrial ecological communities will facilitate the planning, coordination, and applicability of terrestrial ecological monitoring and research. The CASBEC classification and high-resolution ecosystem mapping are being used to develop an effective experimental design, to select ecosite types for long-term monitoring, and to extrapolate results to landscape scales in the Experimental and Reference Area of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) in Cambridge Bay. Widespread adoption of the CASBEC could provide a spatial and functionally scalable framework and a common language for interpreting, integrating, coordinating, and communicating Arctic and Subarctic monitoring, research, and land management activities across the Canadian North and around the circumpolar area.

show abstract

Ecoregion and community structure influences on the foliar elemental niche of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) and white birch (Betula papyrifera Marshall)

Heckford

Leroux

Wal

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes in foliar elemental niche properties, defined by axes of carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) concentrations, reflect how species allocate resources under different environmental conditions. For instance, elemental niches may differ in response to large‐scale latitudinal temperature and precipitation regimes that occur between ecoregions and small‐scale differences in nutrient dynamics based on species co‐occurrences at a community level. At a species level, we compared foliar elemental niche hypervolumes for balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) and white birch ( Betula papyrifera Marshall) between a northern and southern ecoregion. At a community level, we grouped our focal species using plot data into conspecific (i.e., only one focal species is present) and heterospecific groups (i.e., both focal species are present) and compared their foliar elemental concentrations under these community conditions across, within, and between these ecoregions. Between ecoregions at the species and community level, we expected niche hypervolumes to be different and driven by regional biophysical effects on foliar N and P concentrations. At the community level, we expected niche hypervolume displacement and expansion patterns for fir and birch, respectively—patterns that reflect their resource strategy. At the species level, foliar elemental niche hypervolumes between ecoregions differed significantly for fir ( F = 14.591, p ‐value = .001) and birch ( F = 75.998, p ‐value = .001) with higher foliar N and P in the northern ecoregion. At the community level, across ecoregions, the foliar elemental niche hypervolume of birch differed significantly between heterospecific and conspecific groups ( F = 4.075, p ‐value = .021) but not for fir. However, both species displayed niche expansion patterns, indicated by niche hypervolume increases of 35.49% for fir and 68.92% for birch. Within the northern ecoregion, heterospecific conditions elicited niche expansion responses, indicated by niche hypervolume increases for fir of 29.04% and birch of 66.48%. In the southern ecoregion, we observed a contraction response for birch (niche hypervolume decreased by 3.66%) and no changes for fir niche hypervolume. Conspecific niche hypervolume comparisons between ecoregions yielded significant differences for fir and birch ( F = 7.581, p ‐value = .005 and F = 8.038, p ‐value = .001) as did heterospecific comparisons ( F = 6.943, p ‐value = .004, and F = 68.702, p ‐value = .001, respectively). Our results suggest species may exhibit biogeographical specific elemental niches—driven by biophysical differences such as those used to describe ecoregio...

show abstract

The Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Approach: an ecological framework for vegetation classification

Cited by 33 publications

References 29 publications

Supervised versus un‐supervised classification: A quantitative comparison of plant communities in savanna vegetation

Supervised versus un‐supervised classification: A quantitative comparison of plant communities in savanna vegetation

A Standardized Ecosystem Classification for the Coordination and Design of Long-term Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring in Arctic-Subarctic Biomes

Ecoregion and community structure influences on the foliar elemental niche of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) and white birch (Betula papyrifera Marshall)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About