The module provides access to current data for your specific site. This can help determine if you are providing the habitat needed for key species. Habitat information and data collected in the app can be used to develop goals, guide management actions, and develop monitoring plans.

The following videos will show you how to use the LandPKS Habitat Module to learn about wildlife habitats that might or could exist on your land.

Note: these training videos are based on version 3.6.6 of the LandPKS mobile app.

What is a Habitat?

The term “Habitat” refers to the natural home or environment of a plant, animal, or other organism. The existence of terrestrial plant and animal habitats depends on both the land’s potential and how it is managed. LandPKS provides information on potential habitats by integrating species distribution maps with soil information (based on the types of soil that have been mapped at your location). The app also allows you to then identify the soil. Links to “Ecological Site Descriptions” (ESDs) through EDIT provide information on the types of vegetation that could occur on that soil.

ESDs also provide information on the types of management and restoration actions that may result in transitions among different types of vegetation. A wide variety of management strategies can be used to promote these transitions.

A common misconception is that creating wildlife habitat just means grazing a pasture less than one otherwise would in order to leave more grass behind. Through planning and management to control grazing intensity across space and time, heterogeneity of vegetation can be created even within relatively homogenous landscapes. By creating a patchwork of habitat conditions, land can provide habitat for many different plant and animal species.

Who is the LandPKS Habitat Module for?

The LandPKS Habitat Module is for ranchers, farmers, wildlife conservationists, homeowners, educators, and park and other land managers who are interested in preserving and fostering wildlife habitats on their land. The Habitat Module can be used for both planning and educational purposes, on ranches and in schools, in suburban neighborhoods and on wildlife preserves.

What does the LandPKS Habitat Module do?

The LandPKS Habitat Module currently includes a selection of 22 plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and insects that occur in North America, with an emphasis on those that occur in the Great Plains and Great Basin. The Habitat Module contains line drawings of habitats, written descriptions, and a table of habitat characteristics for each species. The habitat drawings are not intended to show all variability within a landscape that a species needs. Rather, the representations depict an “ideal” habitat or critical habitat type (e.g. nesting). See the species factsheets for more information about habitat characteristics. Following collection of soil or vegetation data at any location, the app will display a summary of data for the corresponding habitat characteristic needed by the species.

The information in the LandPKS Habitat Module is designed to be used, together with other information sources, to help define suitable habitat. It is not predictive and is not intended for regulatory purposes.

The LandPKS Habitat Module currently includes only a subset of species that occur in North America.

The habitat illustrations for each species in the app depict “ideal” habitats or limiting habitats (i.e. nesting), rather than depicting all the habitat needs. Above are some examples of illustrations within the app. Top image: Mid-grass prairie; Middle image: Sagebrush shrublands; Bottom image: Shortgrass prairie.

Factsheets

Our Factsheets provide information that can be used to help identify plant and animal species and manage land to improve habitat conditions. The LandPKS Habitat Factsheets are available for download from within the mobile app and from the LandPKS Knowledge Hub.  Each species  factsheet provides a photograph and description of the species, management information, and facts about habitat needs across the species range. The species description, habitat requirements, distribution and management information are written for land managers, and are of value to anyone in habitat conservation. The factsheets also provide ideas for how to contribute in meaningful ways to the quantity and quality of suitable habitat available for a species.

Further reading:

Bird Conservancy of the Rockies – Sharing Your Land Guide 

Bird Conservancy of the Rockies – Tools for Landowners

Chris Helzer, The Prairie Ecologist, “Creating Wildlife Habitat on Great Plains Ranches”

Sage Grouse Initiative – Landowner Resources

Click to read the full 2016 report “Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies, and Tools,” written by the International Resource Panel. The tools and resources below are referred to in the report. Please refer to the available links for additional information. We have included hyperlinks for bibliography entries from the IRP report whenever possible.

Tools

• FAO.org The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations provides a tremendous and constantly increasing amount of tools, data, information and knowledge relevant to sustainably increasing food production. The Land Resources Planning Toolbox provides direct access to a wide variety of useful tools.
• ISRIC.org The International Soil Reference and Information Centre World Soil Information’s website features various tools and data to provide global soil information and currently serves as the primary global repository for soil information. ISRIC uses machine learning methods to create SoilGrids, a digital global soil mapping system whose prediction models use over 230,000 soil profile observations.
• LandPotential.org This website is continuously updated with land evaluation resources and examples of how land evaluation has been successfully used around the world.
• Landon (2014) provides a concise, practical reference for much of the technical knowledge necessary to implement land evaluation and management.
• LandscapeToolBox.org This web portal provides access to a wide variety of tools, including automated sampling design, data analysis and reporting, and simple image-analysis tools that anyone can learn in under an hour. It also includes a Wiki, which, among other things, helps decide what remote sensing imagery is most appropriate based on objectives.
• JournalMap.org The ability to search for articles based on where the research was completed, rather than where the author’s office has been, is nearly impossible in Google Scholar and other bibliographic search engines. JournalMap allows users to search for articles based on location, as well as the biophysical characteristics of a location. 
• Knowledge.UNCCD.int The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Knowledge Hub contains a wealth of information about desertification, land degradation, and drought. It features a Drought Toolbox to support action on drought preparedness and a Capacity Building Marketplace for sharing knowledge and opportunities. In addition, the UNCCD Knowledge Hub contains country pages to connect individuals to local organizations and recommend tools tailored to national conditions.
• UNEP.org UNEP is continuing to increase access to tools, data and knowledge resources, including through UNEPLive.
• Global Agro-Ecological Zones: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) have developed the Agro-Ecological Zones (AEZ) methodology over the past 30 years for assessing agricultural resources and potential. GAEZ allows users to access previously-run evaluations using a geospatial interface.
• WOSSAC.com The World Soil Archive and Catalogue provides access to soil survey reports, maps, imagery and photographs from 344 territories worldwide.

Bibliography

Abongo, E. (2008). Automated land resource assessment: a case for rain fed agriculture in the Jinja District. Kampala, Makerere University.

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in human geography 24 (3): 347-364.

Aradottir, A. L. and D. Hagen (2013). Ecological restoration: approaches and impacts on vegetation, soils and society. Advances in Agronomy 120: 173-222.

Bacic, I. L. Z., D. G. Rossiter, and A. K. Bregt (2003). The use of land evaluation information by land use planners and decision makers: a case study in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Soil Use and Management 19 (1): 12-18.

Bai, Z. G., D.L. Dent, L. Olsson, and M.E. Schaepman. 2008. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil use and management, 24(3) 223-234.

Bai, Z., D. Dent, L. Olsson, A. Tengberg, C. Tucker, and G. Yengoh. 2015. A longer, closer, look flatland degradation. Agriculture for Development, 24, 3-9.

Baker, J.B., B.B Fonnesbeck, J.L. Boettinger. 2016. Modeling rare endemic shrub habitat in the Uinta Basin using soil, spectral, and topographic data. Soil Science Society of America Jorunal 80: 395-408.

Berry, L., J. Olson, and D. Campbell (2003). Assessing the extent, cost and impact of land degradation at the national level: findings and lessons learned from seven pilot case studies. Global Mechanism and the World Bank.

Bestelmeyer, B. T. and D. D. Briske (2012). Grand challenges for resilience-based management of rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management 65 (6): 654-663.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., A. M. Ellison, W. R. Fraser, K. B. Gorman, S. J. Holbrook, C. M. Laney, M. D. Ohman, D. P. C. Peters, F. C. Pillsbury, A. Rassweiler, R. J. Schmitt, and S. Sharma (2011). Analysis of abrupt transitions in ecological systems. Ecosphere 2 (12): 26.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., D. P. Goolsby, and S. R. Archer (2011). Spatial perspectives in state-and-transition models: A missing link to land management? Journal of Applied Ecology 48 (3): 746-757.

Bhattacharyya, T., D. K. Pal, C. Mandal, P. Chandran, S. K. Ray, D. Sarkar, K. Velmourougane, A. Srivastava, G. S. Sidhu, and R. S. Singh (2013). Soils of India: historical perspective, classification and recent advances. Current Science 104 (10): 1308-1323.

Bhattacharyya, T., D. Sarkar, J. L. Sehgal, M. Velayutham, K. S. Gajbhiye, A. P. Nagar, and S. S. Nimkhedkar (2009). Soil taxonomic database of India and the states (1: 250,000 scale). NBSS & LUP Publication 143: 266.

Bouma, J. 1986. Using soil survey information to characterize the soil-water state. Journal of Soil Science 37: 1-7.

Bouma, J. (1996). Discussion of: D. G. Rossiter, a theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 190-191.

Brammer, H., F.O. Nachtergaele. 2015. Implications of soil complexity for environmental monitoring. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(1) 56-73.

Burrough, P. A. (1996). Discussion of: D. G. Rossiter, a theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 191-193.

Capelin, M. (2008). Legal and planning framework. In Guidelines for surveying soil and land resources. McKenzie, N. J., M. J. Grundy, R. Webster, A. J. Ringrose-Voase. 2nd ed. Melbourne, CSIRO Publishing. 515-524.

Caudle, D., J. Dibenedetto, M. Karl, H. Sanchez, and C. Talbot (2013). Interagency ecological site handbook for rangelands. BLM, USFS and U. NRCS. 109.

Cumming, G. S., P. Olsson, F. S. Chapin Iii, and C. S. Holling (2013). Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology 28 (6): 1139-1150.

Dahl, T. E. (2011). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S.F.W. Service. U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington D.C.

Dahl, T. E. and C. E. Johnson (1991). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. Washington, D.C., U.S.F.W. Service. 28 pages.

de Gruijter, J. J. (1996). Discussion of: D. G. Rossiter, a theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 193-196.

Demaria, M. R., I. Aguado Suarez, and D. F. Steinaker (2008). Semiarid pampa grassland replacement and fragmentation in San Luis, Argentina. Ecología Austral 18 (1): 55-70.

Dent, D. and B. Dalal-Clayton (2014). Meeting the need for land resources information in the 21st century – or not. Environmental Governance. London, International Institute for Environment and Development. 115.

Dent, D. and A. Young (1981). Soil survey and land evaluation. George Allen & Unwin.

Development, N. Z. M. o. W. a. (1979). Our Land Resources. Wellington, New Zealand, Water and Soil Division.

EUROCONSULT (1989). Agricultural Compendium: For Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. ELSEVIER: Amsterdam.

Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34: 487-515.

FAO (1976). A framework for land evaluation. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (1984). Crop water requirements. Rome, FAO.

FAO (1985). The US Bureau of Reclamation land classification system. In 1985 Guidelines: land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. FAO: Chapter 10.

FAO. (1996). Agro-ecological zoning: guidelines. FAO Soils Bulletin 73. http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/resources/soils-bulletins/en/.

FAO (2007). Land evaluation: towards a revised framework. Land and Water Discussion Paper 6.

FAO (2012). Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of land tenure. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf

FAO (2014). Land utilization types in Kenya. In A Framework for Land Evaluation. Chapter 5.

Fekete, Z. (1965). Directives to Practical Soil Evaluation (Direktívák a gyakorlati öldértékeléshez). Budapest, Agricultural Press.

Feng, Z. M. (2001). Land use zoning scheme of China based on detailed land surveys. Journal of Natural Resources 16 (4): 325-333.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2002). Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: a case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology 30 (1): 49-78.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., B. Batkhishig, and B. Batbuyan (2012). Cross-boundary and cross-level dynamics increase vulnerability to severe winter disasters (dzud) in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change 22 (4): 836-851.

Ferrara, A., Salvati, L., Sateriano, A., & Nolè, A. (2012). Performance evaluation and cost assessment of a key indicator system to monitor desertification vulnerability. Ecological Indicators 23: 123-129.

Fischer, G., H. van Velthuizen, M. Shah, and F. Nachtergaele. 2002. Global agro-ecological assessment for agriculture in the 21st century: methodology and results (p. 119).

Fu, B. J., G. H. Liu, Y. H. Lu, L. D. Chen, and K. M. Ma (2004). Ecoregions and ecosystem management in China. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 11 (4): 397-409.

Godagnone, R. E., H. Bertola, M. Ancarola, J. C. de la Fuente, V. Nakama, D. Maldonado Pinedo, R. R. Mansilla, and J. M. Gutierrez (2002). Mapa de suelos de Argentina : escala 1:2.500.000. Buenos Aires, Instituto de Suelos, Centro de Investigación de Recursos Naturales, INTA.

Goryelik, L. A. (1967). Land Cadaster of the USSR (Zemelniy Kadastr CCCR). Moscow, Izdatellstvo Ekonomiya.

Helms, D. (1997). Land capability classification: the U.S. experience. In Advances in Geoecology (29): 159-175.

Herrick, J.E., A. Beh, E. Barrios, I. Bouvier, M. Coetzee, D. Dent, E. Elias, T. Hengl, J. W. Karl, H. Liniger, J. Matuszak, J.C. Neff, L.W. Ndungu, M. Obersteiner, K.D. Shepherd, K.C. Urama, R. van den Bosch, N.P. Webb. 2016. The land-potential knowledge system (landPKS): mobile apps and collaboration for optimizing climate change investments. Ecosystem Health & Sustainability 2(3)

Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture (1986). Tables for the implementation of land evaluation. Department of Land Resources: 65.

Indiastat. (2000). “indiastat.com.” 2014, from http://www.indiastat.com/default.aspx.

Isabirye, M. (2005). Land Evaluation Around Lake Victoria: Environmental Implications of Land Use Change. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Jain, B. L. (2000). Agroecological assessment of soil resources of Rajasthan for land use planning. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and NBSS and LUP, Udaipur.

Jelinski, D. E. and J. Wu (1996). The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 11 (3): 129-140.

Johnson, A. K. L. (1996). Discussion of: D. G. Rossiter, a theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 197.

Jones, C., M. Baker, J. Carter, S. Jay, M. Short, and C. Wood (2005). Strategic environmental assessment and land use planning: an international evaluation. London, Earthscan. 320.

Journal, H. O. (1986). 27th Legal Decree of the Presidential Council on the Amendment of the Legal Decree no. 16 of 1980 on Land Evaluation. Magyar Közlöny 54: 1462-1466.

Kain, R. J. P. and E. Baigent (1992). The cadastral map in the service of the state: A history of property mapping. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Kirkwood, V., J. Dumanski, A. Bootsma, R. B. Stewart, and R. Muma (2013). The Land Potential Database for Canada: Users’ handbook. Technical Bulletin 1983-4E. L. R. R. Centre. Ottawa, Ontario, Agriculture Canada Research Branch.

Klingebiel, A. A. and P. H. Montgomery (1961). Land-Capability Classification. U. S. C. Service. Washington, DC., U.S. Government Print Office. 210-221.

Lal, R. (1997). Degradation and resilience of soils. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 352 (1356): 997-1010.

Landon, J.R., 2014. Booker tropical soil manual: a handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Routledge.

Leather, J. W. (1898). On the composition of Indian soils. Agricultural Ledger 4: 81-164.

Lightfoot, D. R., F.W. Eddy. 1994. The agricultural utility of lithic-mulch gardens: Past and present. GeoJournal, 34(4) 425-437.

Liu, J. and W. W. Taylor (2002). Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Liu, J. G. and J. Diamond (2005). China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435 (7046): 1179-1186.

Liu, J. Y., W. Kuang, Z. Zhang, X. Xinliang, Y. Qin, J. Ning, W. Zhou, S. Zhang, R. Li, C. Yan, S. Wu, X. Shi, N. Jiang, D. Yu, X. Pan, and W. Chi (2014). Spatiotemporal characteristics, patterns, and causes of land-use changes in China since the late 1980s. Journal of Geographical Sciences 24 (2): 195-210.

Ludwig, J. A., R. Bartley, A. A. Hawdon, B. N. Abbott, and D. McJannet (2007). Patch configuration non-linearly affects sediment loss across scales in a grazed catchment in north-east Australia. Ecosystems 10 (5): 839-845.

LUP, N. (2002). Soils of India. NBSS & LUP Publication 94: 11.

MAAIF (2010). Agriculture for food and income security: Agricultural sector development strategy & investment plan. Kampala, Uganda, Republic of Uganda. 160.

McBratney, A. B. (1996). Discussion of: D. G. Rossiter, a theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 198.

McKenzie, N. J., M. J. Grundy, R. Webster, and A. J. Ringrose-Voase (2008). Guidelines for Surveying Soil and Land Resources. Melbourne, CSIRO.

MEA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Mendez, M. J. and D. E. Buschiazzo (2010). Wind erosion risk in agricultural soils under different tillage systems in the semiarid Pampas of Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research 106 (2): 311-316.

Michelena, R. O. and C. B. Irurtia (1995). Susceptibility of soil to wind erosion in La Pampa province, Argentina. Arid Land Research and Management 9 (3): 227-234.

Mohr, H. J. and U. Ratzke (2009). 75 Jahre einheitliche Bodenschätzung in Deutschland 1934 – 2009. Warnkenhagen, Germany, Thünengut Tellow. Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools.

Morello, J., S. D. Matteuddi, F. Rodríguez, and M. Silvia (2012). Ecorregiones y complejos ecosistémicos argentinos. Buenos Aires, Ediciones FADU.

Morton, L. W., E. Regen, D. M. Engle, J. R. Miller, and R. N. Harr (2010). Perceptions of landowners concerning conservation, grazing, fire, and eastern redcedar management in tallgrass prairie. Rangeland Ecology & Management 63 (6): 645-654.

Moscatelli, G. and O. Barsky (1991). Los suelos de la Región Pampeana. In BARSKY, Osvaldo; et al. El desarrollo agropecuario pampeano. Buenos Aires: INDEC. INTA. IICA. Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.

Mosi Dhanapalan, A., M. Janakiraman, and H. Eswaran (1991). Communicating soil survey information to traditional farmers. Soil Survey Horizons 32 (2): 31-33.

Natarajan, A., M. Janakiraman, S. Manoharan, V. Balasubramaniyan, K. Murugappan, J. Udayakumar, M. Ramesh, D. Chandramohan, K. V. Niranjana, M. Kirshnasamy, P. Sennimalai, M. Thanikody, M. Kamaludeen, P. Krishnan, G. Rajamannar, S. Natarajan, P. Jagadeesan, and S. Vadivelu (2006). Land resources of Sivagangai Block. Sivagangai District, Tamil Nadu.

Ngugi, M. K. and R. T. Conant (2008). Ecological and social characterization of key resource areas in Kenyan rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments 72 (5): 820-835.

Ni, S. X. (2003). Progress in the research on land evaluation in China during the latest ten years. Journal of Natural Resources 18 (6): 672-683.

NRCS (1973). Land-Capability Classification (LCC). USDA.

O’Connell, D., Abel, N.,Grigg, N., Maru, Y., Butler, J., Cowie, A., Stone-Jovicich, S., Walker, B., Wise, R., Ruhweza, A., Pearson, L., Ryan, P., Stafford Smith, M. (2016). “Designing projects in a rapidly changing world: Guidelines for embedding resilience, adaptation and transformation into sustainable development projects. (Version 1.0)”. Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C.

Obua, J., J. G. Agea, and J. J. Ogwal (2010). Status of forests in Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 48 (4): 853-859.

Okin, G. S., A. J. Parsons, J. Wainwright, J. E. Herrick, B. T. Bestelmeyer, D. C. Peters, and E. L. Fredrickson (2009). Do Changes in Connectivity Explain Desertification? Bioscience 59 (3): 237-244.

Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Animal Production Science 46: 1407-1424.

Peters, D. P. C., B. T. Bestelmeyer, J. E. Herrick, E. L. Fredrickson, H. C. Monger, and K. M. Havstad (2006). Disentangling complex landscapes: New insights into arid and semiarid system dynamics. Bioscience 56 (6):491-501.

Peters, D. P. C., H. W. Loescher, M. D. SanClements, and K. M. Havstad (2014). Taking the pulse of a continent: expanding site-based research infrastructure for regional- to continental-scale ecology. Ecosphere 5 (3): 29.

Phillips, S. T. (1999). Lessons from the Dust Bowl: dryland agriculture and soil erosion in the United States and South Africa, 1900-1950. Environmental History: 245-266.

Pimm, S. L. (1984). The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307: 321-326.

Pringle, H. J. R., I. W. Watson, and K. L. Tinley (2006). Landscape improvement, or ongoing degradation – reconciling apparent contradictions from the arid rangelands of Western Australia. Landscape Ecology 21: 1267–1279.

Ramankutty, N., Foley, J. A., Norman, J., & McSweeney, K. (2002). The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11(5), 377-392.

Raychaudhary, S. P. and S. V. Govindarajan (1971). Soils of India. Technical Bulletin (25).

Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, and H. J. Schellnhuber (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (7263): 472-475.

Roosevelt, T. (1909). Special message to the two houses of Congress. Report of the National Conservation Commission. The White House.

Rossiter, D. G. (1990). ALES: A framework for land evaluation using a microcomputer. Soil Use and Management 6 (1-3): 7-20.

Rossiter, D. G. (1996). A theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 165-190.

Rossiter, D. G. and A. R. van Wambeke (1991). Automated land evaluation system (ALES). New York, Cornell University.

Rossiter, D. G. (2012). A pedometric approach to valuing the soil resource. In Digital Soil Assessments and Beyond: Proceedings of the 5th Global Workshop on Digital Soil Mapping 2012, Sydney, Australia (p. 25). CRC Press.

Salatin, J. (2007). Everything I want to do is illegal. Polyface, Inc.

Seybold, C. A., J. E. Herrick and J. J. Brejda (1999). Soil resilience: A fundamental component of soil quality. Soil Science 164 (4): 224-234.

Shome, K. B. and S. P. Raychaudhuri (1960). Rating of soils of India. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

Strub, W. (2014). Metastasized growth: why health hazards continue to spring from China’s poor soil. China Economic Review. Online, SinoMedia Holdings.

Sz cs, I., M. Fekete-Farkas, and S. Vinogradov (2008). A new methodology for the estimation of land value. Bulletin of the Szent Istvan University (Special Issue part II): 539-549.

Toth, G. (2011). Evaluation of cropland productivity in Hungary with the D-e-Meter land evaluation system. Agrokémia és Talajtan 60: 161-174.

Turner, M. G., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O’Neill (2001). Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York, Springer.

UBOS (2010). Statistical Abstract. Kampala, Government Printers.

Uganda, G. o. (2010). The potential of bio-fuel in Uganda: an assessment of land resources for bio-fuel feedstock suitability. Kampala, Uganda, NEMA and NARO.

Uganda, G. o. (2012). Renewable energy investment guide. Kampala, Uganda, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development.

Uganda Ministry of Lands, H. a. U. D. (2013). The Uganda National Land Policy. H. a. U. D. Ministry of Lands. Kampala, Uganda, Republic of Uganda: 61.

UNEP (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future. Oslo, World Commission on Environment and Development.

UNEP (2014). Assessing global land use: Balancing consumption with sustainable supply. A report of the working group on land and soils of the International Resource Panel. B. S., S. H., P. W. et al.

UNEP (2016). Food Systems and Natural Resources. A report of the working group on food systems of the International Resource Panel. W.H., I. J., V.B. S, O.L, and H. M.

USDA-FSA. (2012). Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance. USDA. from http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20120412_consv_en_helcwc12.html.

USDA-NRCS. (2013). Web Soil Survey. from http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service; Fisheries and Habitat Conservation. 108.

van Diepen, C. A., H. Van Keulen, J. Wolf, and J. A. A. Berkhout (1991). Land evaluation: from intuition to quantification. In Advances in Soil Science. New York, Springer: 139-204.

van Ranst, E. (1996). Discussion of: D. G. Rossiter, a theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72 (3): 196-197.

Vass, J., G. Tóth, T. Bencze, S. Szilágyi, F. Speiser, R. Szlávik and C. Horváth (2003). Information technology of the D-e-Meter on-line GIS-based land evaluation system. Informatika 6 (2): 47-56.

Velayutham, M. (2012). National Soil Information System (NASIS) and land resource mapping for perspective land use planning and pragmatic farm level planning. Madras Agricultural Journal 99 (4/6): 147-154.

Velayutham, M. (2015). Soil and land use survey for stat level perspective land use planning and pragmatic farm level planning. Integrated Land Use Planning for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. M. V. Rao, V. S. Babu, S. Chandra, and G. R. Chary, Apple Academic Press: 375.

Velayutham, M., D. K. Mandal, C. Mandal, and J. Sehgal (1999). Agro-ecological subregions of India for planning and development. NBSS Publication (35).

Verheye, Willy H. (1997). Land use planning and national soils policies.” Agricultural Systems 53: 161-174.

Viswanath, B. and A. C. Ukil (1943). Soil Map of India. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools

Voelcker, J. A. (1893). Report on the improvement of Indian agriculture. Eyre and Spottiswoode.

Walker, B. H., N. Abel, J. M. Anderies, and P. Ryan (2009). Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 12.

Walker, B. H., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2): 5.

Wall, D. H., R. D. Bardgett, V. Behan-Pelletier, J. E. Herrick, T. H. Jones, K. Ritz, J. Six, D. R. Strong, and W. H. Van Der Putten (2012). Soil ecology and ecosystem services. New York City, NY, Oxford University Press.

Whisenant, S. G. (1999). Repairing damaged wildlands: a process-oriented, landscape-scale approach. Cambridge, Cambridge.

White, P. S. and A. Jentsch (2004). Disturbance, succession, and community assembly in terrestrial plant communities. In Assembly rules and restoration ecology: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. V. M. Temperton, R. J. Hobbs, T. Nuttle, and S. Halle. U.S.A., Island Press: 342-366.

Wiens, J. A. (1989). Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3 (4): 385-397.

Woode, P. R. (1981). “We don’t want soil maps; just give us land capability”: the role of land capability surveys in Zambia. Soil Survey and Land Evaluation 1 (1): 2-5.

Wu, B., Q. Yuan, C. Yan, Z. Wang, X. Yu, A. Li, R. Ma, J. Huang, J. Chen, C. Chang, C. Liu, L. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Zeng, and A. Bao (2014). Land cover changes of China from 2000-2010. Quaternery Sciences 34 (4): 723-731.

Yost, D. and H. Eswaran (1990). Major land resource areas of Uganda. S. C. Service, Washington, D. C., U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Young, A. (2007). Thin on the ground: land resource survey in British overseas territories. Stanhope, UK: The Memoir Club.