...
首页> 外文期刊>Ecological indicators >Development and evaluation of NatureServe's multi-metric ecological integrity assessment method for wetland ecosystems
【24h】

Development and evaluation of NatureServe's multi-metric ecological integrity assessment method for wetland ecosystems

机译:湿地生态系统的发展与评价Natureserve的多度量生态完整性评估方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Many ecological monitoring and assessment programs include rapid assessment methods that employ indicators or metrics to track the degree of divergence of ecosystem condition from reference conditions. Although these rapid assessment methods use a combination of metrics to rate overall ecological condition, they rarely include tests of either the merits of the component metrics being assessed or the method of aggregating the metrics into an overall rating. We used a conceptual model of ecological integrity for wetlands and field data to select and test 15 rapid assessment indicators (using specific metrics) across a spectrum of major ecological factors or MEFs (landscape, buffer, vegetation, hydrology, soil). We applied these metrics to 220 wetland sites across six states (Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington), using two assessment area (AA) approaches: 106 sites used 0.5 ha point-based AAs; 114 sites used variable-sized polygon-based AAs. We statistically tested metric ratings and factor scores for their discriminatory power (DP) in relation to a stressor index using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and for redundancy using Spearman rank correlation and scattergrams. Of the 15 metrics, 12 had good or strong DP and were not redundant. Across all metrics, only two pairs (vegetation pair and buffer pair) were strongly correlated. The soil metric had the lowest DP, but it was among the least redundant of any metric. The DP of buffer metrics was lower for point-based approaches than for polygon-based approaches because the buffer for point-based AAs often included additional wetland area. Aggregating individual metrics into MEF scores (e.g., vegetation, hydrology, soil), primary factors scores (Landscape Context, on-site Condition) and overall ecological integrity ratings, either maintained or improved the interpretability of the ratings. Our analyses support the use of 12 rapid field-based metrics, spanning Landscape Context and on-site Condition, to assess the ecological integrity of wetlands. Although tested here for wetlands, the models and metrics are also being applied to upland terrestrial ecosystems. Our findings confirm the merits of our rapid assessment method in providing an intermediate level of assessment that is efficient and ecologically meaningful, within states and across watersheds and regions.
机译:许多生态监测和评估计划包括雇用指标或指标的快速评估方法,以跟踪生态系统条件的分歧程度。虽然这些快速评估方法使用指标的组合来评估整体生态状况,但它们很少包括评估分量指标的优点的测试或将度量集聚成总评分。我们使用了湿地和现场数据的生态完整性的概念模型,以在一系列主要生态因子或MEF(景观,缓冲,植被,水文,土壤中,选择和测试15个快速评估指标(使用特定度量)。我们将这些指标应用于六个州(Colorado,Indiana,Michigan,New Hampshire,New Jersey以及华盛顿)的六个州(Colorado),使用两种评估区域(AA)方法:106个网站使用0.5 HA点的AAS; 114站点使用可变大小的基于多边形的AAS。对于使用Kruskal-Wallis测试的应力源指数,以及使用Spearman等级相关性和散射图,我们对其歧视性功率(DP)的统计学测试的度量评级和因子分数。在15个度量标准中,12个具有良好或强大的DP,并不多余。在所有指标上,只相关两对(植被对和缓冲对)。土壤指标具有最低的DP,但它是任何公制的最少冗余。基于点的方法的缓冲度量DP比基于多边形的方法更低,因为基于点的AAS的缓冲器通常包括额外的湿地区域。将个别指标与MEF分数(例如,植被,水文,土壤),主要因素分数(景观上下文,现场条件)和整体生态完整性评级,维持或改善评级的可解释性。我们的分析支持使用12个快速现场的指标,跨越景观环境和现场条件,评估湿地的生态完整性。虽然在这里进行了用于湿地,但模型和指标也适用于高地陆地生态系统。我们的调查结果证实了我们快速评估方法的优点,在提供高效且生态地有意义的中间评估中,在各国和流域和地区的中间级别。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号