My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-11-12_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (8)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981010
>
2010-11-12_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:26:47 PM
Creation date
11/26/2010 1:46:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/12/2010
Doc Name
pgs 3-1 to 3-101
Section_Exhibit Name
3.0 Project Plan
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.
/
126
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
• Accordingly, it is similar to a density value for species expressed in some term <br />of relative abundance such as density, cover or production. Unfortunately, the <br />above definition is only surficial and must be considered as an over-simplifica- <br />tion. Whittaker (1960) divided diversity into three distinct levels- alpha, <br />beta, and gamma. He defined alpha as the diversity of a single stand or commun- <br />ity and beta as the diversity measured between stands along a gradient. Beta <br />diversity is measured by indices of similarity and is used to show the extent of <br />change in community composition among different communities. The third type, <br />gamma diversity, is diversity that describes the richness of species occurring <br />across an entire landscape. Gamma diversity is considered to be a combination of <br />alpha and beta (Peet, 1974). The definitions of diversity as given by McIntosh <br />(1967) and later by Whittaker (1970) are more general and define diversity as <br />being the number of species (richness) and the distribution of individuals among <br />the species (evenness). <br />McIntosh (1967) defined richness as the diverseness of species in an area of <br />study, while Peet (1974) defines richness as the relative wealth of species in a <br />community. Richness of a stand or community is often expressed by qualitative <br />data, such as a species count. According to McIntosh (1967) the expression of <br />richness by qualitative data assumes equal density of species and thereby implies <br />maximum diversity. In addition, this kind of "measure" of richness must be <br />obtained from samples of equal size since sample size increases, the richness or <br />number of species present and encountered will likewise increase (Peet, 1974). <br />In the measurement of richness, all data must be collected in a random fashion <br />since richness indices are affected by distribution patterns of vegetation (Peet, <br />1974). <br />The second component of diversity defined by McIntosh (1967) and Whittaker (1970) <br />is evenness or equitability. The term equitability is preferred by Peet (1974). <br />He considered evenness to be a subset of equitability. He defined equitability <br />as the evenness with which importance is distributed among the species. Strictly <br />speaking, evenness is an absolute measure of distribution and equitability <br />expresses evenness relative to some standard (Peet, 1974). <br />3-60
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.