Rating impacts in a multi-stressor world: a quantitative assessment of 50 stressors affecting the Great Lakes.

Ecosystems often experience multiple environmental stressors simultaneously that can differ widely in their pathways and strengths of impact. Differences in the relative impact of environmental stressors can guide restoration and management prioritization, but few studies have empirically assessed a comprehensive suite of stressors acting on a given ecosystem. To fill this gap in the Laurentian Great Lakes, where considerable restoration investments are currently underway, we used expert elicitation via a detailed online survey to develop ratings of the relative impacts of 50 potential stressors. Highlighting the multiplicity of stressors in this system, experts assessed all 50 stressors as having some impact on ecosystem condition, but ratings differed greatly among stressors. Individual stressors related to invasive and nuisance species (e.g., dreissenid mussels and ballast invasion risk) and climate change were assessed as having the greatest potential impacts. These results mark a shift away from the longstanding emphasis on nonpoint phosphorus and persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances in the Great Lakes. Differences in impact ratings among lakes and ecosystem zones were weak, and experts exhibited surprisingly high levels of agreement on the relative impacts of most stressors. Our results provide a basin-wide, quantitative summary of expert opinion on the present-day influence of all major Great Lakes stressors. The resulting ratings can facilitate prioritizing stressors to achieve management objectives in a given location, as well as providing a baseline for future stressor impact assessments in the Great Lakes and elsewhere.

[1]  S. Sowa,et al.  Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: “Make No Little Plans”: Developing Biodiversity Conservation Strategies for the Great Lakes , 2013 .

[2]  Benjamin S. Halpern,et al.  Assumptions, challenges, and future directions in cumulative impact analysis , 2013 .

[3]  A. Steinman,et al.  Great Lakes rivermouth ecosystems: scientific synthesis and management implications , 2013 .

[4]  Nathan S. Bosch,et al.  Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Eric A. Johnson,et al.  Association of toxin-producing Clostridium botulinum with the macroalga Cladophora in the Great Lakes. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  N. Urban,et al.  Distribution of the Amphipod Diporeia in Lake Superior: The Ring of Fire , 2013 .

[7]  Dana M Infante,et al.  Joint analysis of stressors and ecosystem services to enhance restoration effectiveness , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  G. Krantzberg.  Renegotiation of the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: From Confusion to Promise , 2012 .

[9]  K. Mengersen,et al.  Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[10]  Roger M. Cooke,et al.  Eliciting expert knowledge of ecosystem vulnerability to human stressors to support comprehensive ocean management , 2012 .

[11]  Michael J. Wiley,et al.  Impacts of agricultural land use on biological integrity: A causal analysis , 2011 .

[12]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment , 2011 .

[13]  J. E. McKenna,et al.  Hierarchical Multi-Scale Classification of Nearshore Aquatic Habitats of the Great Lakes: Western Lake Erie , 2010 .

[14]  François Bousquet,et al.  Preface to this thematic issue , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[15]  Sara S. Metcalf,et al.  Sharing the floodplain: Mediated modeling for environmental management , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[16]  W. Aspinall.  A route to more tractable expert advice , 2010, Nature.

[17]  Carrie V. Kappel,et al.  Using expert judgment to estimate marine ecosystem vulnerability in the California Current. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[18]  F. Bousquet,et al.  Preface to the thematic issue modelling with stakeholders : editorial , 2010 .

[19]  Jacek Malczewski,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Geographic Information Systems , 2010, Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.

[20]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2010 .

[21]  S. Pothoven,et al.  Lake Michigan Lower Food Web: Long-Term Observations and Dreissena Impact , 2010 .

[22]  C. W. West,et al.  Geographic, anthropogenic, and habitat influences on Great Lakes coastal wetland fish assemblages , 2009 .

[23]  Rebecca G. Martone,et al.  Mapping cumulative human impacts to California Current marine ecosystems , 2009 .

[24]  T. Thompson,et al.  Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes , 1999, Wetlands.

[25]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Elicitation by design in ecology: using expert opinion to inform priors for Bayesian statistical models. , 2009, Ecology.

[26]  C. Townsend,et al.  Individual and combined responses of stream ecosystems to multiple stressors , 2008 .

[27]  Benjamin S Halpern,et al.  Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[28]  Ben Collen,et al.  A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[29]  Carrie V. Kappel,et al.  Evaluating and Ranking the Vulnerability of Global Marine Ecosystems to Anthropogenic Threats , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[30]  JoAnn M. Hanowski,et al.  Evaluation of geographic, geomorphic and human influences on Great Lakes wetland indicators: A multi-assemblage approach , 2007 .

[31]  Debra L. Taylor,et al.  Exotic and Invasive Aquatic Plants in Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands: Distribution and Relation to Watershed Land Use and Plant Richness and Cover , 2007 .

[32]  Larry MacDonnell,et al.  River restoration , 2005 .

[33]  Nancy Jennings,et al.  REVIEW: Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice , 2005 .

[34]  William D. Taylor,et al.  The nearshore phosphorus shunt: a consequence of ecosystem engineering by dreissenids in the Laurentian Great Lakes , 2004 .

[35]  C. Simenstad,et al.  Application of the Best Available Science in Ecosystem Restoration: Lessons Learned From Large-Scale Restoration Project Efforts in the USA , 2004 .

[36]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Ecological Thresholds: The Key to Successful Environmental Management or an Important Concept with No Practical Application? , 2006, Ecosystems.

[37]  K. Havens,et al.  The Managed Recession of Lake Okeechobee, Florida: Integrating Science and Natural Resource Management , 2002 .

[38]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  FUZZY COGNITIVE MAPPING AS A TOOL TO DEFINE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR COMPLEX ECOSYSTEMS , 2002 .

[39]  R. Neilson,et al.  Forest Processes and Global Environmental Change: Predicting the Effects of Individual and Multiple Stressors , 2001 .

[40]  Colleen A. Hatfield,et al.  Variability in responses to nutrients and trace elements, and transmission of stressor effects through an estuarine food web , 1999 .

[41]  Ricardo M. Rodriguez Iglesias,et al.  Evaluating expert knowledge: plant species responses to cattle grazing and fire. , 1998 .

[42]  Martin Weber,et al.  Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making , 1993 .

[43]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  You have printed the following article : A Theory of Fads , Fashion , Custom , and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades , 2007 .

[44]  B. L. Welch.  ON THE COMPARISON OF SEVERAL MEAN VALUES: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH , 1951 .