Synoptic assessment of wetland function: a planning tool for protection of wetland species biodiversity

We present a synoptic assessment intended to maximize the benefits to wetland species biodiversity gained through Clean Water Act regulatory efforts within 225 sub-basins in Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas (US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7), USA. Our assessment provides a method for prioritizing sub-basins potentially critical for supporting wetland species biodiversity and may assist environmental managers and conservationists constrained by limited resources. We prioritize sub-basins based on the projected increase in the risk of wetland species extirpation across Region 7 that would be avoided by applying a unit of regulatory protection effort within a sub-basin. Because the projected increase in risk avoided per unit effort has not been directly measured, we represent this quantity with an index of indicators drawn from readily available data. A conceptual model incorporating landscape and anthropogenic factors guides index development via a series of simple benefit-cost equations. We rank and map the final index scores to show the relative priority among sub-basins for protection effort. High priority sub-basins appear to be concentrated along the major river systems within the region, where sensitive wetland species and intensive agriculture tend to coincide. Protection of wetland species biodiversity is an important, but not exclusive, attribute around which priorities should be set. Nevertheless, incorporation of our results into management strategies should allow managers to cast their local decisions in the context of regional scale maintenance of wetland species biodiversity, increasing ecological benefits for a given protection effort.

[1]  R. Morganweck.  Status and trends of wetlands in the coterminous US. , 1989 .

[2]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[3]  A. Dobson,et al.  Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States , 1997, Science.

[4]  T. Dahl,et al.  Wetlands, status and trends in the conterminous United States, mid-1970's to mid-1980's , 1991 .

[5]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  JSEM: A Framework for Identifying and Evaluating Indicators , 2001, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[6]  J. W. Thomas,et al.  Ecological Uses of Vertebrate Indicator Species: A Critique , 1988 .

[7]  M. Boyce.  Population Viability Analysis , 1992 .

[8]  C. Margules,et al.  Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review , 1981 .

[9]  C. Flather,et al.  Species endangerment patterns in the United States , 1994 .

[10]  M. Andersen,et al.  A General Stochastic Model for the Prediction of Biodiversity Losses Based on Habitat Conversion , 1994 .

[11]  F. Schönhofer.  Monitoring and Assessment , 1991 .

[12]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy , 1991, Science.

[13]  L. Harris.  The nature of cumulative impacts on biotic diversity of wetland vertebrates , 1988 .

[14]  R D Holt,et al.  Diverse and Contrasting Effects of Habitat Fragmentation , 1992, Science.

[15]  D. Pearson,et al.  World‐Wide Species Richness Patterns of Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): Indicator Taxon for Biodiversity and Conservation Studies , 1992 .

[16]  Edward O. Wilson,et al.  Information Management for the Conservation of Biodiversity , 1988 .

[17]  S. Pearson.  The spatial extent and relative influence of landscape-level factors on wintering bird populations , 1993, Landscape Ecology.

[18]  Wayne G. Landis,et al.  Design considerations and a suggested approach for regional and comparative ecological risk assessment , 1997 .

[19]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  The Effect of Landscape Heterogeneity on the Probability of Patch Colonization , 1996 .

[20]  Charles E. McCulloch,et al.  MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS IN ECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS: PANACEA OR PANDORA'S BOX? , 1990 .

[21]  Robert G. Bailey,et al.  DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WATERSHEDS AND ECOREGIONS 1 , 1997 .

[22]  John A. Wiens,et al.  Landscape mosaics and ecological theory , 1995 .

[23]  S S Stevens,et al.  On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. , 1946, Science.

[24]  P. Angelstam,et al.  Conservation of Communities — The Importance of Edges, Surroundings and Landscape Mosaic Structure , 1992 .

[25]  F. P. Kapinos,et al.  State hydrologic unit maps , 1984 .

[26]  Terry A. Slocum.  Thematic Cartography and Visualization , 1998 .

[27]  Manuela M. P. Huso,et al.  A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon , 1997 .

[28]  Wayne A. Fuller,et al.  DESIGN AND ESTIMATION FOR INVESTIGATING THE DYNAMICS OF NATURAL RESOURCES , 1998 .

[29]  Robert G. Bailey,et al.  Ecosystem Geography , 1996, Springer New York.

[30]  S. Humphrey,et al.  Rarity as a criterion for endangerment in Florida's fauna , 1987 .

[31]  S. Anderson.  Area and Endemism , 1994, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[32]  N. B. Kotliar,et al.  Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity , 1990 .

[33]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation , 1998, Science.

[34]  J. Sidle,et al.  Aerial thermal infrared imaging of Sandhill Cranes on the Platte River, Nebraska , 1993 .

[35]  Reed F. Noss,et al.  From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at the nature conservancy (USA) , 1987 .

[36]  Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.  General technical report , 1985 .

[37]  Michael E. Gilpin,et al.  Viable Populations for Conservation: Spatial structure and population vulnerability , 1987 .

[38]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Minimum viable populations : Processes of species extinction , 1986 .

[39]  Denis White,et al.  Conservation Prioritization Using GAP Data , 1996 .

[40]  A. Cropper.  Convention on Biological Diversity , 1993, Environmental Conservation.

[41]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  A General Framework for Prioritizing Land Units for Ecological Protection and Restoration , 2000, Environmental management.

[42]  Walter G. Whitford,et al.  Monitoring and Assessment , 2020, Ecology of Desert Systems.

[43]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  Use of Scale Invariance in Evaluating Judgement Indicators , 1999 .

[44]  I. Turner.  Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: a review of the evidence. , 1996 .

[45]  W. Niering.  Endangered, Threatened and Rare Wetland Plants and Animals of the Continental United States , 1988 .

[46]  D. Macmillan,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of woodland ecosystem restoration , 1998 .

[47]  A. V. D. Valk,et al.  Northern Prairie Wetlands , 1988 .

[48]  Sam Kash Kachigan.  Multivariate statistical analysis: A conceptual introduction , 1982 .

[49]  Brooke Abbruzzese,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: A Synoptic Approach for Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands , 1997, Environmental management.

[50]  E. C. Pielou.  Shannon's Formula as a Measure of Specific Diversity: Its Use and Misuse , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[51]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Habitat Patch Connectivity and Population Survival , 1985 .

[52]  R. Holt,et al.  The Relative Importance of Small-Scale and Landscape-Level Heterogeneity in Structuring Small Mammal Distributions , 1999 .

[53]  R. Tiner,et al.  Wetlands of the United States : current status and recent trends / by Ralph W. Tiner, Jr. ... [et al.]. , 1984 .

[54]  J. Nichols,et al.  Inference Methods for Spatial Variation in Species Richness and Community Composition When Not All Species Are Detected , 1998 .

[55]  J. T. Collins,et al.  A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central North America , 1975 .

[56]  J. Kerr.  Species Richness, Endemism, and the Choice of Areas for Conservation , 1997 .

[57]  Michael S. Gaines,et al.  Habitat Fragmentation and Movements of Three Small Mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus, and Peromyscus) , 1995 .

[58]  D. Morris.  Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes , 1992, Evolutionary Ecology.