Floristic Quality Assessment: a critique, a defense, and a primer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) measures have become extraordinarily influential ecological metrics in North America over the past 20 yr. Government agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and researchers alike utilize this plant-based measure to evaluate habitat conservation value, ecological integrity, and naturalness. Its relative uniqueness, utility, and ease of use, among vegetation measures, portend the continued popularity of FQA going forward. FQA's use and influence far exceeds its study—where the literature addressing questions and criticisms regarding its methodology and ecological meaning has not kept pace with reliance upon it. Furthermore, the lack of literature review has led to disorder and confusion among its users. This review addresses these issues in three parts. First, it concisely explains the metrics and their methods, and most importantly, it synthesizes the often-misinterpreted conceptual basis behind FQA. The bulk of the review then tackles common questions from researchers and non-technical users alike regarding the measures. It does this with two lists. The first list reviews FQA's most common criticisms and summarizes evidence for and against them. The second list confronts the most common mistakes surrounding FQA, regarding both its application and misunderstanding in the literature. In each instance, straightforward guidelines and answers to uncertainties are emphasized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere02825
JournalEcosphere
Volume10
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2019

Fingerprint

floristics
researchers
government agencies
ecological value
habitat conservation
managers
uncertainty
naturalness
vegetation
methodology
literature review
defence

Keywords

  • Floristic Quality Index (FQI)
  • Mean C
  • anthropogenic disturbance
  • biological integrity
  • coefficient of conservatism
  • conservation value
  • ecological indicator
  • habitat assessment
  • human impact
  • natural area assessment
  • natural area quality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology

Cite this

Floristic Quality Assessment : a critique, a defense, and a primer. / Spyreas, Greg.

In: Ecosphere, Vol. 10, No. 8, e02825, 01.08.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e645fce5a60b4fb4a3e465f4116a7087,
title = "Floristic Quality Assessment: a critique, a defense, and a primer",
abstract = "Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) measures have become extraordinarily influential ecological metrics in North America over the past 20 yr. Government agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and researchers alike utilize this plant-based measure to evaluate habitat conservation value, ecological integrity, and naturalness. Its relative uniqueness, utility, and ease of use, among vegetation measures, portend the continued popularity of FQA going forward. FQA's use and influence far exceeds its study—where the literature addressing questions and criticisms regarding its methodology and ecological meaning has not kept pace with reliance upon it. Furthermore, the lack of literature review has led to disorder and confusion among its users. This review addresses these issues in three parts. First, it concisely explains the metrics and their methods, and most importantly, it synthesizes the often-misinterpreted conceptual basis behind FQA. The bulk of the review then tackles common questions from researchers and non-technical users alike regarding the measures. It does this with two lists. The first list reviews FQA's most common criticisms and summarizes evidence for and against them. The second list confronts the most common mistakes surrounding FQA, regarding both its application and misunderstanding in the literature. In each instance, straightforward guidelines and answers to uncertainties are emphasized.",
keywords = "Floristic Quality Index (FQI), Mean C, anthropogenic disturbance, biological integrity, coefficient of conservatism, conservation value, ecological indicator, habitat assessment, human impact, natural area assessment, natural area quality",
author = "Greg Spyreas",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ecs2.2825",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
journal = "Ecosphere",
issn = "2150-8925",
publisher = "Ecological Society of America",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Floristic Quality Assessment

T2 - a critique, a defense, and a primer

AU - Spyreas, Greg

PY - 2019/8/1

Y1 - 2019/8/1

N2 - Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) measures have become extraordinarily influential ecological metrics in North America over the past 20 yr. Government agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and researchers alike utilize this plant-based measure to evaluate habitat conservation value, ecological integrity, and naturalness. Its relative uniqueness, utility, and ease of use, among vegetation measures, portend the continued popularity of FQA going forward. FQA's use and influence far exceeds its study—where the literature addressing questions and criticisms regarding its methodology and ecological meaning has not kept pace with reliance upon it. Furthermore, the lack of literature review has led to disorder and confusion among its users. This review addresses these issues in three parts. First, it concisely explains the metrics and their methods, and most importantly, it synthesizes the often-misinterpreted conceptual basis behind FQA. The bulk of the review then tackles common questions from researchers and non-technical users alike regarding the measures. It does this with two lists. The first list reviews FQA's most common criticisms and summarizes evidence for and against them. The second list confronts the most common mistakes surrounding FQA, regarding both its application and misunderstanding in the literature. In each instance, straightforward guidelines and answers to uncertainties are emphasized.

AB - Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) measures have become extraordinarily influential ecological metrics in North America over the past 20 yr. Government agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and researchers alike utilize this plant-based measure to evaluate habitat conservation value, ecological integrity, and naturalness. Its relative uniqueness, utility, and ease of use, among vegetation measures, portend the continued popularity of FQA going forward. FQA's use and influence far exceeds its study—where the literature addressing questions and criticisms regarding its methodology and ecological meaning has not kept pace with reliance upon it. Furthermore, the lack of literature review has led to disorder and confusion among its users. This review addresses these issues in three parts. First, it concisely explains the metrics and their methods, and most importantly, it synthesizes the often-misinterpreted conceptual basis behind FQA. The bulk of the review then tackles common questions from researchers and non-technical users alike regarding the measures. It does this with two lists. The first list reviews FQA's most common criticisms and summarizes evidence for and against them. The second list confronts the most common mistakes surrounding FQA, regarding both its application and misunderstanding in the literature. In each instance, straightforward guidelines and answers to uncertainties are emphasized.

KW - Floristic Quality Index (FQI)

KW - Mean C

KW - anthropogenic disturbance

KW - biological integrity

KW - coefficient of conservatism

KW - conservation value

KW - ecological indicator

KW - habitat assessment

KW - human impact

KW - natural area assessment

KW - natural area quality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071991516&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071991516&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ecs2.2825

DO - 10.1002/ecs2.2825

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85071991516

VL - 10

JO - Ecosphere

JF - Ecosphere

SN - 2150-8925

IS - 8

M1 - e02825

ER -