An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: A) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; B) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; C) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and D) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, E) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world’s ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the status of biodiversity

This article provides guidelines for the description, documentation, and review of proposals for new or revised plant associations and alliances to be recognized as units of vegetation within the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (NVC). By setting forth standards for field records, analysis, description, peer review, and archiving, the Ecological Society of America's Vegetation Classification Panel, in collaboration with the U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee, NatureServe, and others, seeks to advance our common understanding of vegetation and improve our capability to sustain and restore natural systems. We provide definitions for the two floristic levels of the NVC hierarchy: associations and alliances. This is followed by a description of standards for field plot records and the identification and classification of vegetation types. Procedures for review and evaluation of proposed additions and revisions of types are provided, as is a structure for data archiving and dissemination. These procedures provide a dynamic and practical way to publish new or revised descriptions of vegetation types while maintaining a current, authoritative list of types for multiple users to access and apply. for the U.S. Forest Service ECODATA software. Break points shown in the cover-abundance column reflect the major break points of the Braun-Blanquet scale, which is considered the minimum standard for cover classes. Among the available cover class systems, NC and K can be unambiguously collapsed to the BB standard, and the D, DAUB, FS, PA, and NZ scales are for all practical purposes collapsible into the BB scale without damage to data integrity. The BDS is somewhat discordant with the BB standard and should be avoided except when required for incorporation of legacy data.Species present in the stand but not in the plot are indicated in parentheses on the species list. à This is a cover-abundance scale; if numerous individuals of a taxon collectively contribute less than 5% cover, then the taxon can be assigned a value of 1 or, if very sparse, a ''þ.'' MICHAEL D. JENNINGS ET AL. 182

Aim National and international policy frameworks, such as the European Union's Renewable Energy Directive, increasingly seek to conserve and reference 'highly biodiverse grasslands'. However, to date there is no systematic global characterization and distribution map for grassland types. To address this gap, we first propose a systematic definition of grassland. We then integrate International Vegetation Classification (IVC) grassland types with the map of Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (TEOW).Location Global.Methods We developed a broad definition of grassland as a distinct biotic and ecological unit, noting its similarity to savanna and distinguishing it from woodland and wetland. A grassland is defined as a non-wetland type with at least 10% vegetation cover, dominated or co-dominated by graminoid and forb growth forms, and where the trees form a single-layer canopy with either less than 10% cover and 5 m height (temperate) or less than 40% cover and 8 m height (tropical). We used the IVC division level to classify grasslands into major regional types. We developed an ecologically meaningful spatial catalogue of IVC grassland types by listing IVC grassland formations and divisions where grassland currently occupies, or historically occupied, at least 10% of an ecoregion in the TEOW framework.Results We created a global biogeographical characterization of the Earth's grassland types, describing approximately 75% of IVC grassland divisions with ecoregions. We mapped 49 IVC grassland divisions. Sixteen additional IVC grassland divisions are absent from the map because of the fine-scale distribution of these grassland types.Main conclusions The framework provided by our geographical mapping effort provides a systematic overview of grasslands and sets the stage for more detailed classification and mapping at finer scales. Each regional grassland type can be characterized in terms of its range of biodiversity, thereby assisting in future policy initiatives.

Aims Classification of vegetation is an essential tool to describe, understand, predict and manage biodiversity. Given the multiplicity of approaches to classify vegetation, it is important to develop international consensus around a set of general guidelines and purpose‐specific standard protocols. Before these goals can be achieved, however, it is necessary to identify and understand the different choices that are made during the process of classifying vegetation. This paper presents a framework to facilitate comparisons between broad‐scale plot‐based classification approaches. Results Our framework is based on the distinction of four structural elements (plot record, vegetation type, consistent classification section and classification system) and two procedural elements (classification protocol and classification approach). For each element we describe essential properties that can be used for comparisons. We also review alternative choices regarding critical decisions of classification approaches; with a special focus on the procedures used to define vegetation types from plot records. We illustrate our comparative framework by applying it to different broad‐scale classification approaches. Conclusions Our framework will be useful for understanding and comparing plot‐based vegetation classification approaches, as well as for integrating classification systems and their sections.

A vegetation classification approach is needed that can describe the diversity of terrestrial ecosystems and their transformations over large time frames, span the full range of spatial and geographic scales across the globe, and provide knowledge of reference conditions and current states of ecosystems required to make decisions about conservation and resource management. We summarize the scientific basis for EcoVeg, a physiognomic‐floristic‐ecological classification approach that applies to existing vegetation, both cultural (planted and dominated by human processes) and natural (spontaneously formed and dominated by nonhuman ecological processes). The classification is based on a set of vegetation criteria, including physiognomy (growth forms, structure) and floristics (compositional similarity and characteristic species combinations), in conjunction with ecological characteristics, including site factors, disturbance, bioclimate, and biogeography. For natural vegetation, the rationale for the upper levels (formation types) is based on the relation between global‐scale vegetation patterns and macroclimate, hydrology, and substrate. The rationale for the middle levels is based on scaling from regional formations (divisions) to regional floristic‐physiognomic types (macrogroup and group) that respond to meso‐scale biogeographic, climatic, disturbance, and site factors. Finally, the lower levels (alliance and association) are defined by detailed floristic composition that responds to local to regional topo‐edaphic and disturbance gradients. For cultural vegetation, the rationale is similar, but types are based on distinctive vegetation physiognomy and floristics that reflect human activities. The hierarchy provides a structure that organizes regional/continental vegetation patterns in the context of global patterns. A formal nomenclature is provided, along with a descriptive template that provides the differentiating criteria for each type at all levels of the hierarchy. Formation types have been described for the globe; divisions and macrogroups for North America, Latin America and Africa; groups, alliances and associations for the United States, parts of Canada, Latin America and, in partnership with other classifications that share these levels, many other parts of the globe.

No abstract

“Ecological integrity” provides a useful framework for ecologically based monitoring and can provide valuable information for assessing ecosystem condition and management effectiveness. Building on the related concepts of biological integrity and ecological health, ecological integrity is a measure of the composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem in relation to the system's natural or historical range of variation, as well as perturbations caused by natural or anthropogenic agents of change. We have developed a protocol to evaluate the ecological integrity of temperate zone, forested ecosystems, based on long‐term monitoring data. To do so, we identified metrics of status and trend in structure, composition, and function of forests impacted by multiple agents of change. We used data, models, and the scientific literature to interpret and report integrity using “stoplight” symbology, ie “Good” (green), “Caution” (yellow), or “Significant Concern” (red). Preliminary data indicate that forested ecosystems in Acadia National Park have retained ecological integrity across a variety of metrics, but that some aspects of soil chemistry and stand structure indicate potential problems. This protocol was developed for the National Park Service Vital Signs Monitoring Program and holds promise for application in the temperate zone, forested ecosystems of eastern North America.

As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation might serve its vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’1,2. Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management3. Ecosystems vary in their biota4, service provision5 and relative exposure to risks6, yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth’s ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.