Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/4033
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Foran, Christy M. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Linkov, Igor | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Moberg, Emily A. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Smith, David L. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Soballe, David M. | en_US |
dc.creator | Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program (U.S.) | en_US |
dc.creator | Environmental Laboratory (U.S.) | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-03-16T16:16:13Z | en_US |
dc.date.available | 2016-03-16T16:16:13Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2011-10 | en_US |
dc.identifier.govdoc | ERDC TN-EMRRP-EM-10 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11681/4033 | en_US |
dc.description | Technical Note | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | A wide variety of ecological forecasting tools are used to support the project planning process within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These tools range from relatively simple empirical relations describing the expected habitat preferences of species (or guilds of species) to complex, dynamic models of water movement, sediment, and other material fluxes to behavior-based models of individual organisms (agent-based models) and spatially-explicit tool(s) that address habitat and landscape mosaics (e.g., Guisan and Zimmermann 2000). Models or tools from across this spectrum have played important roles at various points in the planning process within the USACE, but district level planners have faced major challenges in finding and applying suitable ecological forecasting tools, especially for smaller (e.g., Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Section 1135) projects which may be funded by less than $100,000 ($5 million maximum) and which are allowed only one or two years for completion (ER-1105-2100). Thus, the choice of a specific tool in many planning applications has been based on factors (i.e., project size, funding, duration) not directly related to a formal, technical evaluation of tool capability or suitability. This technical note reviews some of the most commonly used USACE forecasting tools and models in ecological restoration. It outlines an approach for comparing these tools that will help USACE planners and their project stakeholders better identify and select appropriate forecasting models. Although this technical note is not a primer or a selection metatool (i.e., a tool to select tools), it is hoped that this note will contribute to a long-term goal of USACE staff (both planners and researchers) to become better-informed developers and consumers of ecological forecasting tools. Secondarily, this note is intended to give researchers a clearer view of what USACE planners need (but do not have available) with regard to ecological forecasting capabilities. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program (U.S.) | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 27 pages/459 KBs | en_US |
dc.format.medium | PDF/A | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.) | en_US |
dc.relation | http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/search/asset/1005463 | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Technical Note (Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC TN-EMRRP-EM-10 | en_US |
dc.rights | Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited | en_US |
dc.source | This Digital Resources was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat | en_US |
dc.subject | Ecology | en_US |
dc.subject | Forecasting | en_US |
dc.subject | Statistical methods | en_US |
dc.subject | Restoration ecology--Planning | en_US |
dc.title | Ecological forecasting tools and planning of ecosystem restoration projects | en_US |
dc.type | Report | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Technical Note |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ERDC-TN-EMRRP-EM-10.pdf | 459.58 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |