Premium
DESIGNATION OF WETLANDS BY WEIGHTED AVERAGES OF VEGETATION DATA: A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 1
Author(s) -
Wentworth Thomas R.,
Johnson George P.,
Kologiski Russell L.
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1988.tb02997.x
Subject(s) - wetland , vegetation (pathology) , environmental science , vegetation classification , hydrology (agriculture) , indicator value , range (aeronautics) , habitat , sampling (signal processing) , physical geography , geography , ecology , geology , medicine , materials science , geotechnical engineering , pathology , composite material , computer vision , biology , filter (signal processing) , computer science
Weighted averages (WA) was investigated as a vegetation‐based method for wetland designation, to be used in conjunction with the wetland indicator status of plants from Wetland Plants of the United States of America 1986 (Reed, 1986). Ecological indices were assigned to indicator groups and were used to compute weighted averages for quantitative data obtained from four studies of wetland vegetation conducted in various regions of the United States. Weighted averages of vegetation data proved to be a useful tool for assessing wetland status of the vegetation types included in our study: (1) rankings of vegetation stands or types by WA correlated well with their positions on environmental moisture gradients; and (2) the results of WA could be used, together with a wetland/upland break‐point, to designate vegetation types as wetland or upland in a way that agreed well, in three of the four studies, with an alternative classification of wetland habitats. The variation of weighted averages among the sampling units representing a vegetation type was generally small relative to the range of ecological indices assigned. However, designations based on weighted average scores close to the break‐point should be considered provisional and must be verified with supplementary data on soils and hydrology.