Literature DB >> 17123003

Integrating human impacts and ecological integrity into a risk-based protocol for conservation planning.

Kimberly M Mattson1, Paul L Angermeier.   

Abstract

Conservation planning aims to protect biodiversity by sustainng the natural physical, chemical, and biological processes within representative ecosystems. Often data to measure these components are inadequate or unavailable. The impact of human activities on ecosystem processes complicates integrity assessments and might alter ecosystem organization at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater conservation targets, such as populations and communities, are influenced by both intrinsic aquatic properties and the surrounding landscape, and locally collected data might not accurately reflect potential impacts. We suggest that changes in five major biotic drivers-energy sources, physical habitat, flow regime, water quality, and biotic interactions-might be used as surrogates to inform conservation planners of the ecological integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Threats to freshwater systems might be evaluated based on their impact to these drivers to provide an overview of potential risk to conservation targets. We developed a risk-based protocol, the Ecological Risk Index (ERI), to identify watersheds with least/most risk to conservation targets. Our protocol combines risk-based components, specifically the frequency and severity of human-induced stressors, with biotic drivers and mappable land- and water-use data to provide a summary of relative risk to watersheds. We illustrate application of our protocol with a case study of the upper Tennessee River basin, USA. Differences in risk patterns among the major drainages in the basin reflect dominant land uses, such as mining and agriculture. A principal components analysis showed that localized, moderately severe threats accounted for most of the threat composition differences among our watersheds. We also found that the relative importance of threats is sensitive to the spatial grain of the analysis. Our case study demonstrates that the ERI is useful for evaluating the frequency and severity of ecosystem-wide risk, which can inform local and regional conservation planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17123003     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-005-0238-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  14 in total

1.  A system dynamic model for the assessment of different exposure routes in aquatic ecosystems.

Authors:  G Carbonell; C Ramos; M V Pablos; J A Ortiz; J V Tarazona
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2000-03-20       Impact factor: 7.963

2.  A watershed-based cumulative risk impact analysis: environmental vulnerability and impact criteria.

Authors:  S L Osowski; J D Swick; G R Carney; H B Pena; J E Danielson; D A Parrish
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Testing bioassessment metrics: macroinvertebrate, sculpin, and salmonid responses to stream habitat, sediment, and metals.

Authors:  C A Mebane
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Assessing relationships between human land uses and the decline of native mussels, fish, and macroinvertebrates in the Clinch and Powell River watershed, USA.

Authors:  Jerome M Diamond; David W Bressler; Victor B Serveiss
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.742

5.  A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems.

Authors:  Glenn W Suter; Susan B Norton; Susan M Cormier
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.742

6.  Risk-based analysis of environmental monitoring data: application to heavy metals in North Carolina surface waters.

Authors:  Benjamin L Preston; Jeremiah Shackelford
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.266

7.  Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past.

Authors:  J S Harding; E F Benfield; P V Bolstad; G S Helfman; E B Jones
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-12-08       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: Assessing Biotic Integrity of Streams: Effects of Scale in Measuring the Influence of Land Use/Cover and Habitat Structure on Fish and Macroinvertebrates.

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.266

9.  Ecological Risk Assessment at The Regional Scale: Ecological Archives A005-001.

Authors:  R L Graham; C T Hunsaker; R V O'Neill; B L Jackson
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 4.657

10.  Determining the causes of impairments in the Little Scioto River, Ohio, USA: part 2. Characterization of causes.

Authors:  Susan M Cormier; Susan B Norton; Glenn W Suter; David Altfater; Bernie Counts
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.742

View more
  9 in total

1.  Landscape-based assessment of human disturbance for michigan lakes.

Authors:  Lizhu Wang; Kevin Wehrly; James E Breck; Lidia Szabo Kraft
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Evaluating aggregate terrestrial impacts of road construction projects for advanced regional mitigation.

Authors:  James H Thorne; Evan H Girvetz; Michael C McCoy
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2009-02-14       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Riverine threat indices to assess watershed condition and identify primary management capacity of agriculture natural resource management agencies.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Fore; Scott P Sowa; David L Galat; Gust M Annis; David D Diamond; Charles Rewa
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2014-01-04       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework.

Authors:  Eric R Merriam; J Todd Petty; Michael P Strager
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-07-24       Impact factor: 1.355

5.  Stream Vulnerability to Widespread and Emergent Stressors: A Focus on Unconventional Oil and Gas.

Authors:  Sally A Entrekin; Kelly O Maloney; Katherine E Kapo; Annika W Walters; Michelle A Evans-White; Kenneth M Klemow
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Correspondence of biological condition models of California streams at statewide and regional scales.

Authors:  Jason T May; Larry R Brown; Andrew C Rehn; Ian R Waite; Peter R Ode; Raphael D Mazor; Kenneth C Schiff
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 2.513

7.  Performance of landscape composition metrics for predicting water quality in headwater catchments.

Authors:  Linda R Staponites; Vojtěch Barták; Michal Bílý; Ondřej P Simon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Validating anthropogenic threat maps as a tool for assessing river ecological integrity in Andean-Amazon basins.

Authors:  Janeth Lessmann; Maria J Troya; Alexander S Flecker; W Chris Funk; Juan M Guayasamin; Valeria Ochoa-Herrera; N LeRoy Poff; Esteban Suárez; Andrea C Encalada
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Proposed Environmental Risk Management Elements in a Carpathian Valley Basin, within the Roşia Montană European Historical Mining Area.

Authors:  Doru Bănăduc; Angela Curtean-Bănăduc; Kevin Cianfaglione; John Robert Akeroyd; Lucian-Ionel Cioca
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-25       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.