My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-09-21_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (44)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981010
>
2009-09-21_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (44)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:40 PM
Creation date
11/24/2009 12:55:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
9/21/2009
Doc Name
Rangeland, Cropland, Wildlife Mitigation & Air Pollution Control Plan
From
pages 4-101 to 4-171
Section_Exhibit Name
4.4 through 4.7
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4.4.1.4 Species Diversity Standard <br />• <br />As discussed in Section 3.6.1.3 species diversity is commonly defined as the number of species which <br />occur in a community (richness) in combination with the physical distribution of individuals among those <br />species (evenness). This is about as far as ecologists have progressed in the establishment of an <br />accepted diversity concept. A review of available literature provides one with a host of techniques and <br />formulas all claimed to be the method for calculating diversity (refer to Section 3.6.1.3). This point is <br />also confirmed by Hill (1973) who stated: <br />"Unfortunately, when we look for a suitable numerical definition, we <br />find that no particular formula has a pre-eminent advantage, and that <br />different authors have plausibly proposed different indicies." <br />The problems associated with diversity indicies do not stop here. Hill continues in the same publication <br />by saying "...whereas it is easy enough to define measures of diversity which apply to a particular <br />sample, very often they will have no meaning when applied to in the whole community." According to <br />Hill (1973), the reason for this is that as the size of the sample (n) is increased, the calculated diversity of <br />the community will likewise increase. As sampling intensities fluctuate yearly due to differences in <br />population variances, so will the diversity index. <br />Just as other authors on diversity, Hill (1973) presents his own technique for defining the elusive parame- <br />ter. Hill proposes that one should attempt to estimate the "effective number of species" in a sample. <br />According to the Office of Surface Mining, the ideal formula for defining diversity is yet another formula <br />that is a modification of the Shannon and Weiner (Weaver) formula (Bonham, et.al., 1980). This formula <br />is described as follows: <br />H' _ - E pi log pi <br />where: H'= diversity measure <br />pi = Ni/N <br />Ni = dominance measure for ith species <br />N = Sum of all species dominance measures <br />The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) states that the Shannon-Weiner (Weaver) formula is recommended <br />by Pielou (1975) as the appropriate index for diversity (Bonham, et.al, 1980). However, based on past <br />publications by Pielou (1966, 1966b), he concluded the Shannon and Weaver formula for diversity is <br />inappropriate. According to Pielou (1966), H' should only be used to calculate diversity under the <br />following assumptions: <br />C? <br />4-120 <br />Revision: <br />Approved: y?i8 8.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.