Criterion – T: Ecosystem diversity

Consultant's Initials:

CKW

Source:

CCFM

Identification No. in source:

1.1

 

Final Identification No. (as reported in final list):

T

Class:

Ecological/

biophysical

Recommendation (after field testing)

Yes

Box A:

Enter the selected criterion as stated in the source document in this space:

Ecosystem diversity.

Box B: Attributes

Rated on a scale of 1-5, where 1=no/bad/unimportant and 5=yes/good/important

original revised original

revised

(a)

(j)

(a)

(j)

Precisely defined? (clear)

3

Will it produce replicable results? (reliable)

3

Diagnostically specific ? (valid)

4

Is it applicable for all landowners?

3

Sensitive?

5

Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust)

5

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

2

How relevant is this criterion?

5

Useable?

3

Box C:

Justify your selection of the Criterion in Box A. Please ensure you discuss its relationship to theory:

Ecosystem diversity can be considered a part of ecosystem function. An ecosystem must have some minimal set of conditions and species to function properly. Hence structure, functions and processes are interrelated components. The CCFM write-up gives an excellent perspective on this. Many other references could be cited.

Box D:

Provide bibliographic references (if any) which support your selection of this Criterion for evaluation:

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. In Kohm, K.A. (ed.) Balancing on the brink of extinction. The Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Covelo, CA. P. 266-281.

Kaufmann and others,1994. An Ecological Basis for Ecosystem Management. United States Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report RM-246. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 22 p.

Keystone Center. 1991. Biological Diversity on Federal Lands. Report of a Keystone Policy Dialogue. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO.

Keystone Center. 1996. Ecosystem Management. Report of a Keystone policy dialogue. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO. various paging.

Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, (eds.). 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington D.C. 475 p.

Grumbine, R.E. 1992. Ghost bears: Exploring the biodiversity crises. Island Press. Washington D.C. 290 p.

Box E:

Please name (give the reference of) the Criterion that overlap (come closest) to the Criterion that has been selected for evaluation:

CIFOR: 2.4.1 has a close tie

CCFM: 2.1; and 2.2 are related concepts as resilience is linked to ecosystem diversity

Box F:

Please record your notes on evaluating the Criterion (Box A) here:

Ecosystem diversity is very well covered in the CCFM document. I think attendant indicators are some of the most applicable and usable in the whole project.

Box G: Geo-Political

Evaluate the geo-political scale on which the Criterion operates. Multiple-entries are

possible but care should be taken to determine the primary thrust of the criterion.

Justify:

 original revised

(a)

(j)

Planet earth

North America

Intermountain

X

West

Study area

X

Tenure

Site

X

Box H: Function
Classify Criterion according to whether it refers to the structure of the system biophysical, social or management), function of the system, describes its composition or describes perturbations to the system.

Justify:

 original revised

(a)

(j)

Structure

Function

Composition

X

Perturbation

Box I: Linkages

Identify linkages between Criterion, to ensure that the same or similar information is not collected twice and to ascertain whether the necessary feedback loops exist between Criterion.
The Principle has information value for the following areas/principles:

Ecological /

Biophysical: X

Social: X

Economic: -

Forest Mngt: -

Yield & harvest: -

Does not fit: -

Box J:

Final version of Criterion, state only if different to definition in Box A:

N/A