Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results*

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rapid progress is being made in the conceptual, technical, and organizational requirements for generating synoptic multi-scale views of the earth's surface and its biological content. Using the spatially comprehensive data that are now available, researchers, land managers, and land-use planners can, for the first time, quantitatively place landscape units – from general categories such as ‘Forests’ or ‘Cold-Deciduous Shrubland Formation’ to more categories such as ‘Picea glauca-Abies balsamea-Populus spp. Forest Alliance’ – in their large-area contexts. The National Gap Analysis Program (GAP) has developed the technical and organizational capabilities necessary for the regular production and analysis of such information. This paper provides a brief overview of concepts and methods as well as some recent results from the GAP projects. Clearly, new frameworks for biogeographic information and organizational cooperation are needed if we are to have any hope of documenting the full range of species occurrences and ecological processes in ways meaningful to their management. The GAP experience provides one model for achieving these new frameworks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, C.R., Pearlstine, L. and Wojcik, D.P. 1998. Spatial modeling of ant diversity. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 7. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T.F. and Starr, T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 310 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M.P. 1991. Vegetation: data collection and analysis. In Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. pp. 37–41. Edited by C.R. Margules and M.P. Austin. CSIRO, East Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd rev. and expanded ed. with separate map at 1:7,500,000. Misc. Publ. No. 1391, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 108 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeron, P.S. and Engelking, L.D., editors. 1994. A preliminary vegetation classification of the Western United States. A report prepared by theWestern Heritage Task Force and The Nature Conservancy for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Nature Conservancy Western Regional Office, Boulder, CO.

  • Burley, F.W. 1988. Monitoring biological diversity for setting priorities in conservation. In Biodiversity. pp. 227–230. Edited by E.O. Wilson. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 521 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caicco, S.L., Scott, J.M., Butterfield, B. and Csuti, B. 1995. A gap analysis of the management status of the vegetation of Idaho (U.S.A.). Cons. Biol. 9: 498–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congalton, R.G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classification of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing Env. 37: 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider, A.Y., Boyd, R.J. and Stuart, H.R. (eds). 1986. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist, P.J., Edwards, T.C., Homer, C.G., Bassett, S.D., Thompson, B.C. and Brackney, E. 1998. Mapping and categorizing land stewardship. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/AboutGAP/Handbook/SMC.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist, P. and Deitner, R. 1998. Assessing land cover map accuracy. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/AboutGAP/Handbook/LCA. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist, P. and Csuti, B. 1997. The assessment of the representation of biotic elements relative to land stewardship. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/handbook/analysis/Index.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csuti, B., Polasky, S., Williams, P.H., Pressey, R.L., Camm, J.D., Kershaw, M., Kiester, A.R., Downs, B., Hamilton, R., Huso, M. and Sahr, K. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Cons. 80: 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csuti, B. and Kiester, R. 1996. Hierarchical gap analysis for identifying priority areas for biodiversity. In Gap analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csuti, B. and Crist, P. 1998a. Methods for developing terrestrial vertebrate distribution maps for gap analysis. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/AboutGAP/Handbook/VDM.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csuti, B. and Crist, P. 1998b. Methods for assessing accuracy of animal distribution maps. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/handbook/VDA/Index.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F.W., Stoms, D.M., Estes, J.E., Seepan, J. and Scott, J.M. 1990. An information systems approach to the preservation of biological diversity. Int. J. Geog. Inf. Syst. 4 (1): 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F.W., Estes, J.E., Csuti, B.C., Scott, J.M., Stoms, D., Painho, M.P., Stine, P., Hollander, A., Walker, R., Bueno, M., Cogan, C. and Gray, V. 1991. Geographic information systems analysis of biodiversity in California. Report. Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, J. and Faber-Langendoen, D. 1997. An alliance-level classification of the vegetation of the Midwestern United States. A report prepared by The Nature Conservancy Midwest Conservation Science Department for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Nature Conservancy Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duever, L.C. and Noss, R.F. 1990. A computerized method of priority ranking for natural areas. In Ecosystem management: Rare Species and Significant Habitats. pp. 22–33. Edited by R.S. Mitchell, C.J. Sheviak and D.J. Leopold. Bulletin No. 471, New York State Museum, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESA Vegetation Panel. Unpublished. An initiative for a standardized classification of vegetation of the United States. Ecological Society of America, Sustainable Biosphere Initiative, Washington, DC.

  • Eve, M. and Merchant, J. 1998. GAP land cover mapping protocols. http://www.calmit.unl.edu/gapmap. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenner, F., editor. 1975. A national system of ecological reserves in Australia. Report of the Australian Academy of Science, No. 19. Canberra.

  • Fertig, W., Reiners, W.A. and Hartman, R.L. 1998. Selecting plant species for Gap Analysis in Wyoming. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 7. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • FGDC. 1997. Vegetation information and classification standard. Federal Geographic Data Committee, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 619 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol. Appl. 3 (2): 202–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gap Analysis Program. 1998. A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/AboutGAP/Handbook/Index.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, J.W., Burke, V.J., Lovich, J.E., Semlitch, R.D., Tuberville, T.D., Bodie, J.R., Greene, J.L., Niewiarowski, P.H., Whiteman, H.H., Scott, D.E., Pechmann, J.H.K., Harrison, C.R., Bennett, S.H., Krenz, J.D., Mills, M.S., Buhlmann, K.A., Lee, J.R., Seigel, R.A., Tucker, A.D., Mills, T.M., Lamb, T., Dorcas, M.E., Congdon, J.D., Smith, M.H., Nelson, D.H., Dietsch, M.B., Hanlin, H.G., Ott, J.A. and Karapatakis, D.J. 1997. Perceptions of species abundance, distribution, and diversity: lessons from four decades of sampling on a government-managed reserve. Env. Manag. 21 (2): 259–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D.H., Faber-Langendoen, D., Weakley, A.S., Anderson, M., Bourgeron, P., Crawford, R., Goodin, K., Landaal, S., Metzler, K., Patterson, K., Pyne, M., Reid, M. and Sneddon, L. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Volume 1. The national vegetation classification system: development, status, and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halbert, S., Jennings, M.D., Cogan, C., Quisenberry, S. and Johnson, J.B. 1995. Potential use of suction trap collections of aphids as indicators of plant biodiversity. In Insects in a changing environment. pp. 499–504. Edited by N. Stark and R. Harrington. Academic Press, London. 535 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 1998. http://www.itis.usda.gov/itis.

  • Jennings, M.D. 1993. Natural terrestrial cover classification: Assumptions and definitions. Gap Analysis Technical Bulletin 2. USGS National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M.D. 1995. Gap analysis today: a confluence of biology, ecology, and geography for management of biological resources. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 23: 658–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M.D. 1996a. Mapping units: their classification and nomenclature for gap analysis land cover data. In Gap Analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. pp. 7l–78. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F.W. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M.D. 1996b. The Ecological Society of America's Vegetation Classification Panel. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 5. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M.D., Brackney, E., Crist, P. and Sorbel, R. 1996. Gap Analysis Program 1995 and 1996 status report. USGS Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M.D. 1997. Progressing toward a standardized classification of vegetation for the USA. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 6. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P. 1993. No shortcuts in new maps. Nature 365: 292–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys, Jr., J., Carpenter, C., Hooks, S., Koenig, F., MC W.H., Russell, W. and Smith, M.L. 1995. Ecological units of the Eastern United States: first approximation. USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, J.H. and May, R.M. (eds). 1995. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 233 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillesand, T.M. and Kiefer, R.W. 1987. Remote sensing and image interpretation.John Wiley & Sons, New York. 721 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks, O.L. 1995. Special committee on vegetation classification annual report. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 76: 221–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks, O.L. 1996. 100 years after Cowles: a national classification for vegetation. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 77: 75–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lugo, A.E. 1988. Estimating reductions in the diversity of tropical forest species. In Biodiversity. pp. 58–70. Edited by E.O. Wilson. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 521 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, C.C. and Plummer, M.L. 1995. Noah's choice: the future of endangered species. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 302 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C.R. and Austin, M.P. (eds). 1991. Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. CSIRO, East Melbourne, Australia. 207 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNab, W.H. and Avers, P.E. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, E.H., Kohley, T.W., Herdendorf, M.E., Reiners, W.A., Driese, IK.L., Marrs, R.W. and Anderson, S.H. 1996. The Wyoming Gap Analysis Project final report. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap. USGS National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, T., Wright, R.G. and Scott, J.M. 1995. Using ecological criteria to evaluate wilderness planning options in Idaho. Env. Manag. 19: 815–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biol. Cons. 41: 11–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Cons. Biol. 4: 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F. 1991. Protecting habitats and biological diversity: design of regional reserve systems. National Audubon Society, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F. 1991. Report to the Fund for Animals, Washington, DC.

  • Noss, R.F. and Cooperrider, A.Y. 1994. Saving nature's legacy. Island Press, Washington, DC. 416 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F., LaRoe, E.T. and Scott, J.M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. National Biological Service, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B. and Allen, T.F.H. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Monographs in Population Biology No. @3. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 253 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill, R.V. 1996. Recent developments in ecological theory: hierarchy and scale. In Gap Analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. pp. 7–14. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F.W. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Bittleman, J.L. and Brooks, T.M. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269: 347–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, J.R., Quinn, R.M., Lawton, J.H., Eversham, B.C. and Gibbons, D.W. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I. and Williams, P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic, reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 124–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, M., and others. Unpublished. A classification and description of terrestrial community alliances in The Nature Conservancy's Western region: first approximation. A report in preparation by The Nature Conservancy Western Regional Office for the USGS National Gap Analysis Program. The Nature Conservancy Western Regional Office, Boulder, CO.

  • Reid, W.V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 275–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.M., Csuti, B., Jacobi, J.D. and Estes, J.E. 1987. Species richness: a geographical approach to protecting biodiversity. BioScience 37: 782–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R.F., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D'Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Jr., Ulliman, J. and Wright, G. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity.Wildlife Monographs No. 123.

  • Scott, J.M. and Jennings, M.D. 1998. Large-area mapping of biodiversity. Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 85: 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaymaker, D.M., Jones, K.M.L., Griffin, C.R. and J.T. Finn. 1996. Mapping deciduous forests in southern New England using aerial videography and hyperclustered multi-temporal Landsat TM imagery. In Gap Analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. pp. 87–101. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F.W. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E.L. 1996. Two decades of change. Endangered Species Bull. 21(4): 8–9. http://www.fws.gov/r9endspplesb/96/chief.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K.G., Dzur, R.S., Catanzaro, D.G., Gamer, M.E., and Limp, W.F. 1998. State-wide biodiversity mapping for Arkansas: the Arkansas Gap Analysis Project final report. Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Also see http://www.cast.uark.edulcast/projects/gap/finalrptlindex.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon, L., Anderson, M. and Metzler, K. 1994. A classification and description of terrestrial community alliances in The Nature Conservancy's eastern region: first approximation. A report prepared by The Nature Conservancy Eastern Regional Office for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Nature Conservancy Eastern Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, S.P. 1998. A strategy for implementing gap analysis in riverine environments. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 7. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, R.L., Roe, E.M. and Boughlon, V.H. 1974. Conservation of major plant communities in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Australian J. Bot. Suppl. Series No. 7.

  • Stoms, D.M. 1994. Actual vegetation layer. In A handbook for gap analysis. pp. 1.1–1.6. Edited by J.M. Scott and M.D. Jennings. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoms, D.M., Davis, F.W., Driese, K.L., Cassidy, K.M. and Murray, M.P. 1998. Gap analysis of the vegetation of the Intermountain Semi-Desert Ecoregion. Great Basin Nat. 58: 199–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tear, T.H., Scott, J.M., Hayward, P. and Griffith, B. 1993. Status and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262: 976–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton University Press. 207 pp.

  • The Nature Conservancy. 1996. 1996 annual report card for U.S. plant and animal species. Arlington, VA.

  • The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Selected Nature Conservancy scientific data: zoological data from the United States. Arlington, VA. Also see http://www.consci.tnc.orglsrc/zoodata.htrn.

  • Thompson, B.C., Crist, P.J., Prior-Magee, J.S., Deitner, R.A., Garber, D.L. and M.A. Hughes. 1996. Gap analysis of biodiversity conservation in New Mexico using geographic information systems. New Mexico Cooperative Fish andWildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weakley, A.S., Patterson, K., Landaal, S. and Gallyoun, M. 1997. An alliance-level classification of the vegetation of the southeastern United States. A report prepared for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit by The Nature Conservancy Southeastern Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC.

  • Whittaker, R.H. 1973. Dominance-types. In Handbook of vegetation science, Part V: Ordination and classification of communities. pp. 387–402. Edited by R.H. Whittaker. W. Junk, The Hague, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R.G., MacCracken, J.G. and Hall, J. 1994. An ecological evaluation of proposed new conservation areas in Idaho: evaluating proposed Idaho national parks. Cons. Biol. 8(1): 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R.G., Scott, J.M., Mann, S. and Murray, M.P. Unpublished. Identifying unprotected and at risk plant communities in the western USA. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Gap Analysis Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 530 S. Asbury St., Suite 1, Moscow, Idaho, 83843, USA

    Michael D. Jennings

Authors
  1. Michael D. Jennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jennings, M.D. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results*. Landscape Ecology 15, 5–20 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008184408300

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008184408300

Search

Navigation