* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Rivers and Wetlands: A Common Assessment Approach
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Human impact on the nitrogen cycle wikipedia , lookup
Soundscape ecology wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biogeography wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Ecological resilience wikipedia , lookup
Ecological succession wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Toxicodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Triclocarban wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Sustainability metrics and indices wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Ecological economics wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Ecological Assessment: An Overview Environmental Issues and Public Policy Zoo 446 Fall 2001 Standard Questions • Is there a problem? • Is it getting better or worse? • What’s causing the problem? • Can we fix it? • Is it getting better or worse? Risk Assessment Stressor-Response Assessment Response Assessment Risk Management Legal Considerations Social Factors Public Health Risk (Condition) Characterization Exposure (stressor) Assessment Management Options Risk Management Decision Politics Economics Modified from EPA 1996 Ecological Risk Assessment Ecological Condition (Ecological Values and Indicators) (Is there a problem?) Response Assessment high low low CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) Stressor-Response Relationship Stressor Gradient Exposure Assessment (What’s Causing the Problem?) high Ecological Risk Assessment Ecological Condition (Ecological Values and Indicators) (Is there a problem?) Response Assessment high low low CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) Stressor-Response Relationship Stressor Gradient Exposure Assessment (What’s Causing the Problem?) high Ecological Risk Assessment Ecological Condition (Ecological Values and Indicators) (Is there a problem?) Response Assessment high low low CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) Stressor-Response Relationship Stressor Gradient Exposure Assessment (What’s Causing the Problem?) high Risk Assessment Stressor-Response Relationship Observational Approaches Experimental Approaches Hazard Assessment Quality of Life Human Health Ecological Health Risk Characterization Diagnosis, Certainty Multiple Lines of Evidence Indices of Sustainability and Restorability Exposure Assessment Stressors Physico-chemical Measurements Biotic Indices Human Activities (GIS & Modeling) Mod. From EPA 1996 Study Design • Objectives • Conceptual Model • Hypotheses & Indicators • Sampling Plan Ecological Assessment Framework Analysis • Define Expected Condition • Measure Observed Condition • Assess Human Effects (E-O) • Stressor-Response Relationships Integration • Determine Causes or Threats to Impairment • Develop Management Plans • Assess Management Success Study Design • Objectives • Conceptual Model • Hypotheses & Indicators • Sampling Plan Ecological Assessment Framework Analysis • Define Expected Condition • Measure Observed Condition • Assess Human Effects (E-O) • Stressor-Response Relationships Integration • Determine Causes or Threats to Impairment • Develop Management Plans • Assess Management Success Ecological Assessment Framework Study Design Define Objectives Ecosystem Services Conceptual Model Analysis Plan (Hypotheses, Indicators, Sampling Plan) Objectives: Defining the Problem Legislatively in US • Protect Species† • Protect Ecological Integrity * – Physical and Chemical Integrity – Biotic Integrity: Structural and Functional • Protect Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife* – Interim Goal: larger and important animals • Protect Ecosystem Services – Biodiversity support, flood control, nutrient retention, aesthetics, sustainable productivity † Endangered Species Act * Clean Water Act Goals Objectives (Support Designated Uses), Measurable Responses and Indicators • Drinkability • Taste, odor, toxic, • Microbial Contamination • Fishability • Low DO, Temp • Swimmability • Water clarity • Microbial Contamination Natural Stressors/Geographic Setting (Climate, Geology, Latitude, etc.) Stream Channel Modification Urbanization/ Residential Development Forest Practices Agriculture Mining Recreation & Mgmt Atmospheric Deposition Habitat Alt. Toxic Waste Oil Gravel Extraction Heavy Metals Liming Roads Construction Habitat Alt. Boating Fishing Fish Intro., Poisoning NOx SOx Air Toxics Liming Human Activities Dams Channelization Diversions Levees Revetments Increasing Population Roads Construction Point Sources Wastewater Pets Changes in flow, timing, amount, pathway Fragmentation Fertilizers Pesticides Roads Monoculture Compaction Sedimentation Fertilizers Livestock Pesticides Habitat Alt. Irrigation Compaction Animal Waste Changes in Vegetation Changes in sediment load Chemical Loading; Toxins Nutrients O2 Demand Acid/Base Stressors Physical Habitat Mobilization of heavy metals Water Quality Chemical Habitat Endpoints Changes in Biological Assemblages Conceptual Model modified from Bryce et al. 1999 Study Plans • Surveys – Use: primarily to assess condition of ecosystems and establish probable exposure problems or threats – Pros • Realistic Responses • Realistic Exposures – Stressors – Human Activities – Cons • Expensive • Time consuming • Poor cause-effect determination • Experiments (Bioassays) – Use: primarily to establish exposures at which undesirable effects occur – Pros • Cost-effective • Relatively Rapid • Establish cause-effect – Cons • Unrealistic Responses • Unrealistic Exposures – Stressors not natural Ecological Assessment Framework Analysis Expected Condition Observed Condition Response Indicators Stressor Indicators Response Indicators Stressor Indicators Land Use Indicators Land Use Indicators Human Effects Assessment StressorResponse Relations Ecological Understanding o o o o o o o o oo o Stressor Indicator Response Indicator o o o oooooo o oooo o o oo o oo o o o o o o oo Observed Conditions & Relations Land Use Indicators Human Activities – BMPs Response Indicator Stressor Indicator oo o o o o oo o o o oo o ooo o o o o o ooo oo o o oooo o o oo oo o o o Land Use Indicators Human Activities – BMPs o o o o o o o Expected Condition o oo o Stressor Indicator Response Indicator o o o oooooo o oooo o o oo o oo o o o o o o oo Observed Conditions & Relations Land Use Indicators Human Activities – BMPs Response Indicator Stressor Indicator oo o o o o oo o o o oo o ooo o o o o o ooo oo o o oooo o o oo oo o o o Land Use Indicators Human Activities – BMPs CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) (Ecological Values and Indicators) Ecological Condition high Stressor Criterion low low Stressor Gradient high CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal (Ecological Values and Indicators) Ecological Condition high Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition) Stressor Criterion low low Stressor Gradient high CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal (Ecological Values and Indicators) Ecological Condition high Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition) Stressor Criterion low low Stressor Gradient high CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal (Ecological Values and Indicators) Ecological Condition high Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition) Stressor Criterion low low Stressor Gradient high CWA Ultimate Goal (e.g. protect all native taxa) BioCriterion for IBI based on Protecting Goal (Ecological Values and Indicators) Ecological Condition high Indicator of BI (e.g. change in species composition) Stressor Criterion low low Stressor Gradient high Criteria for Indicators (NRC) • • • • • General Importance Conceptual Basis Reliability Statistical Properties Temporal & Spatial Scale • Data Requirements • Skills Required • • • • Data Quality Data Archiving Robustness International Compatibility • Costs, Benefits, and Cost-Effectiveness NRC Recommended Indicators • Extent and Status of Nation’s Ecosystems – Land cover type and area – Land use • Ecological Capital – Total species diversity, Native species diversity – Nutrient runoff, Soil organic matter • Ecosystem Function and Performance – Carbon storage, Productive capacity, Net primary production, – Lake trophic status, Stream oxygen – Nutrient use efficiency and Nutrient balance of ag. ecosystems Multimetric Indices of Biotic Integrity • Multiple variables combined into one index – – – – Species richness % Sensitive Species % Predator Species 6-10 variables responding to different stressors • Good summary • Easy to communicate • More reliable in broad use, but not as sensitive as refined, single-indicator responses Response Indicators • Change in Species Composition • Change in Ecosystem Function • Loss of Native Species in Sensitive Assemblages (Microbes and Invertebrates) • Loss of Health of Tolerant Organisms (e.g., Fish and Wildlife) • Loss of Native Species of Tolerant Organisms Stressor Indicators Land Use Indicators • Nutrient Enrichment • Decrease in Dissolved Oxygen Concentration • Sedimentation • Changed Temperature • Habitat Alteration • Habitat Loss • Biotic Indices: • % Urban Land Use • % Agricultural Land Use • % Impervious Surface • Width Riparian Buffer • Proximity of Use to Habitat – % High P spp. Muskegon Watershed Land Use Regions Effects of Human Activities Differ With Activity and Habitat and Endpoint B. Pijanowski M. Colunga Ecological Assessment Framework Integration Cause/Threat Assessment Management Options Restoration/ Protection Assessment Management Decision & Implementation Stressor-Response Relationship Natural Acceptable ok A B Stressor Level Everglades, South Florida, USA Conceptual Model for Everglades Mats + P Algae Growth - + P harvest & Stability ? CaCO3 % Mat Cover Change in Floating Mat Cover = f (Distance from P Source In Everglades) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from P Source (km) Change in Number of Native Spp In Everglades Native Diatom Taxa 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Distance from P Source (km) Percent Similarity Deviation in Spp Relative Abundance from Reference in Everglades 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Distance from P Source (km) TP on Gradient Distance from input structures (km) Sediment P on Gradient Algal Responses in the Everglades Dosing Facility Total Sediment Phosphorus (mg/kg) Contour Map for WCA-2A F0 E0 F1 F2 F3 E1 E2 E3 F4 E4 F5 U3 E5 U2 U1 SFWMD Transect Site Water Control Structure Risk Assessment Response-Stressor Relationship Hazard Assessment Exposure Assessment Risk Management Legal Considerations Social Factors Public Health Risk Management Decision Risk Characterization Management Options Politics Economics Modified from EPA 1996 Sampling Sites for KY – MI Stream Survey A Stream Problem….. excessive Cladophora SAIN Conceptual Model Geology Landscape Development Nutrients Flow Stability Diatom Biofilm Thick Diatom Mat Climate Scraping Herbivores Cladophora filaments Predators CollectorGatherers SAIN Sampling Sites Parameters Assessed • • • • • • • • • • Discharge Temperature Canopy Cover Conductivity pH, alkalinity NO3+NO2, NH4, TN PO4 (SRP), TP Silica Chloride Total Suspended Solids • Water Column Chl a • Periphyton Cover and Thickness • 3 3-rock clusters for algal biomass & species composition ** • Inverts on 10 rocks5 • 5-rock clusters for invertebrate biomass & species composition ** • ** Only sampled 1/8 wk. Assess Algal Biomass Visually In Field Visual Biomass Macroalgae & Microalgae Sample Algae (Targeted or Multihabitat) Take to Lab Identify and Count Algae Microscopically Cell Density Species Relative Abundances ALGAL METHODS Split Sample Dry & Burn Assay Pigments with Spectrophotometer AFDM Chl a Phaeophytin Rapid Periphyton Survey • View Bottom at Sites along Transects • Characterize % Cover of Different Algal Types • Characterize Thickness of Each Algal Type % Cladophora Cover Peak Cladophora Biomass 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 100 TP Concentration (ug P/L) Similarity to Reference Similarity of Diatom Composition Between Test and Reference Assemblages 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 10 100 Average TP ( g P/L) 1000 Standard Questions • Is there a problem? • Is it getting better or worse? • What’s causing the problem? • Can we fix it? • Is it getting better or worse?