Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Wetland Mitigation Site Identification Through Community Distribution Modeling and a Patch-Based Ranking Scheme

  • Article
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current wetland mitigation practices do not fully recover wetland function, often due to poor mitigation site selection. Improved mitigation site selection methods are needed to efficiently assess the suitability and quality of potential wetland mitigation sites at broad spatial scales. We present a novel application of maximum entropy-based predictive distribution models coupled with a patch-based ranking scheme to identify potential wetland mitigation sites and contrast their effectiveness relative to a conventional “expert opinion” model. We used hydrogeologic and landscape features and widely available wetland community distribution data to predict locations of wetlands that were previously unknown, destroyed, or biologically rare in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin in the northeastern United States. An “expert opinion” model predicted wetland occurrence based on topographic slope and soil type. Maximum entropy-based models predicted an independent sample of wetland locations well (Area Under the Curve = 0.86–0.98; 92 % correct classification rate) and dramatically outperformed the “expert opinion” model (62 % correct classification rate). A patch-based ranking scheme, which incorporated additional influences on wetland quality, ranked sites with biologically important wetland plant communities highly among model-identified wetlands. We conclude that integration of maximum entropy-based predictive modeling and patch-based ranking can effectively identify high quality wetland mitigation sites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arthur DJ, Bohm B, Layne M (2008) Hydraulic fracturing considerations for natural gas wells of the Marcellus shale. Technical Report 1:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayliss J, Helyar A, Lee JT, Thompson S (2003) A multi-criteria targeting approach to neutral grassland conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 67:145–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford BL, Godwin KS (2003) Fens of the United Sates: distribution, characteristics, and scientific connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands 23:608–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford BL, Leopold DJ, Gibbs JP (2001) Wetland ecosystems. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 5:781–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benayas JR, Bullock JM, Newton AC (2008) Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:329–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biebighauser TR (2007) Wetland drainage, restoration, and repair. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinson M (1993) Hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4:1–79

  • Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, Laroe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Deblauwe V, Barbier N, Couteron P, Lejeune O, Bogaert J (2008) The global biogeography of semi-arid periodic vegetation patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17:715–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard A, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edinger GJ, Evans DJ, Bebbauer S, Howard TM, Hunt DM, Olivero AM (2002) Ecological communities of New York State. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY

  • Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberon J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2010) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity and Distributions 17:43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2009) ArcMap version 9.3.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD, Wegner JF (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S, Guisan A (2006) Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:393–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneletti D (2004) A GIS-based decision support system to identify nature conservation priorities in an alpine valley. Land Use Policy 21:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gesch D, Oimen M, Greenlee S, Nelson C, Steuck M, Tyler D (2002) The national elevation dataset. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs JP (2000) Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 14:314–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godwin KS, Shallenberger JP, Leopold DJ, Bedford BL (2002) Linking landscape properties to local hydrogeologic gradients and plant species occurrence in minerotrophic fens of New York State, USA: a hydrogeologic setting (HGS) framework. Wetlands 22:722–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer Associated Inc., Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Araujo MB, Virkkala R, Thuiller W, Sykes MT (2006) Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change. Progress in Physical Geography 30:751–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 national land cover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70:829–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter ML, Jacobson GL, Web T (1988) Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conservation Biology 2:375–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2004) 2004 IUCN Red list of threatened species. A global species assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

  • Jimenez-Valuerde A, Lobo JM (2007) Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecologica 31:361–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AM, Leopold DJ (1994) Vascular plant species richness and rarity across a minerotrophic gradient in wetlands of St. Lawrence County, New York, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:606–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karraker NE, Gibbs JP, Vonesh JR (2008) Impacts of road deicing salt on the demography of vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 18:724–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Likens GE, Belt KT, Stack WP, Kelly VR, Band LE, Fisher GT (2005) Increased salinization of fresh water in the northeastern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:13517–13520

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA (2010) Wetland ecology, principles and conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kershner JL (1997) Setting riparian/aquatic restoration objectives within a watershed context. Restoration Ecology 5:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kudray GM, Gale MR (2000) Evaluation of national wetland inventory maps in a heavily forested region in the upper great lakes. Wetlands 20:581–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JT, Woddy SJ, Thompson S (2001) Targeting sites for conservation: using a patch-based ranking scheme to assess conservation potential. Journal of Environmental Management 61:367–380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Wilson RF (1996) Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time and self-design. Ecological Applications 6:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comin FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biology 10:e1001247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan R, Muller-Landau HC (2000) Spatial patterns of seed dispersal, their determinants and consequences for recruitment. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15:278–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) United States Department of Agriculture (2010) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for New York. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov Accessed 01/15/2011

  • Nekola JC, Bruelheide H (2004) Vascular plant compositional gradients within and between Iowa fens. Journal of Vegetation Science 15:771–780

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, SW, Dicken CL, Horton JD, Foose MP, Mueller JAL, Hon R (2006) Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States. United States Geological Survey

  • NYDEC (2011) Revised draft SGEIS on the oil, gas and solution mining regulatory program (September 2011). Well permit issuance for horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the marcellus shale and other low-permeability gas reservoirs

  • NYNHP (2011) Rare species and community occurrences, biodiversity databases, element occurrence record digital data set. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmeri L, Trepel M (2002) A GIS-based score system for siting and sizing of created or restored wetlands: two case studies. Water Resources Management 16:307–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson AT, Papeş M, Eaton M (2007) Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. Ecography 30:550–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with MaxEnt: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Race MS, Fonseca MS (1996) Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications 6:94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaber PR, Kapinos FP, Knapp GL (1987) Hydrologic units maps. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2294:1–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiner RW (1997) NWI maps: what they tell us. National Wetlands Newsletter 19:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  • USFWS (2010) National wetlands inventory. 1:25,000:1

  • Van Lonkhuyzen RA, LaGory KE, Kuiper JA (2004) Modeling the suitability of potential wetland mitigation sites with a geographic information system. Environmental Management 33:368–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White D, Fennessy S (2005) Modeling the suitability of wetland restoration potential at the watershed scale. Ecological Engineering 24:359–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young TP (2000) Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biological Conservation 92:73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by EPA Wetland development grant number CD97225309 as a joint project between The Upper Susquehanna Coalition and the Department of Environmental and Forest Biology at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. The authors would like to thank Jim Curatolo and Melissa Yearick for their inputs throughout the project and the New York Natural Heritage Program for sharing spatial data. Two anonymous reviewers’ comments greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Dr., Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

    Elizabeth A. Hunter, Patrick A. Raney, James P. Gibbs & Donald J. Leopold

  2. Upper Susquehanna Coalition, 183 Corporate Dr., Owego, NY, 13827, USA

    Elizabeth A. Hunter & Patrick A. Raney

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick A. Raney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James P. Gibbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Donald J. Leopold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Hunter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunter, E.A., Raney, P.A., Gibbs, J.P. et al. Improving Wetland Mitigation Site Identification Through Community Distribution Modeling and a Patch-Based Ranking Scheme. Wetlands 32, 841–850 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0315-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0315-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation