Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Potential Vegetation Criteria for Identifying Reference-Quality Wetlands in the South-Central United States

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reference criteria are needed for wetland monitoring and assessment programs. We used field-collected vegetation data from non-forested wetland sites in the south-central United States to establish preliminary criteria for identifying reference-quality wetlands in future surveys. Our analysis included three parts: (1) preliminary reference verification and metric ranking using boxplots and standardized effect size, (2) updating the putative reference sample and metric selection using Test Site Analysis, and (3) establishing reference criteria from best-metric confidence intervals and indicator species combinations. The Floristic Quality Assessment Index most clearly distinguished the reference wetlands; an index value of at least 20 is recommended for future reference designations in the study region. Other potential reference criteria include a maximum of 3–5 % bare ground in the 100 m buffer, a moderately sensitive species assemblage (mean conservatism > 5.0), a small percentage (<10 %) of tolerant species (coefficient of conservatism ≤ 2), and high native richness (>22 species). Five single species, four pairs, and one triplet combination were extracted as potential indicators of reference sites from 70,375 combinations of 75 candidate species, offering an efficient alternative to sampling entire vegetation communities. The analysis framework in this case study could be useful for similar projects in other regions.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • [U.S. EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Methods for evaluating wetland condition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-822-R-02-014

    Google Scholar 

  • [U.S. EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) National wetland condition assessment: field operations manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-843-R-10-001

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachand M, Pellerin S, Côté SD, Moretti M, De Cáceres M, Brousseau PM, Cloutier C, Hébert C, Cardinal É, Martin JL, Poulin M (2014) Species indicators of ecosystem recovery after reducing large herbivore density: comparing taxa and testing species combinations. Ecol Indic 38:12–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RC, Norris RH, Reynoldson TB (2004) Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems: using the reference condition approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Griffeth GE, Frydenborg R, McCarron E, White JS, Bastain L (1996) A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 15:185–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman MF, Somers KM (2006) Evaluating a novel test site analysis (TSA) bioassessment approach. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:712–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman MF, Somers KM, Reid RA, Scott LD (2006) Temporal response of stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities to the synergistic effects of anthropogenic acidification and natural drought events. Freshw Biol 51:768–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT, Strout KM, Portante T (2012) Coefficients of conservatism for the vascular flora of New York and New England: inter-state comparisons and expert opinion bias. Northeast Nat 19(6 Special Issue):101–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT, Jog SK, Matthews JW (2013) Floristic quality assessment signals human disturbance over natural variability in a wetland system. Ecol Indic 34:260–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA, WRP-DE-4, NTIS No. AD A270 053

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R (1996) The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl 6:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA (2006) Inventorying and monitoring wetland condition and restoration potential on a watershed basis with examples from spring creek watershed, Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Manag 38:673–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain SJ, Ingram HM (2012) Developing coefficients of conservatism to advance floristic quality assessment in the Mid-Atlantic region. Journal Torrey Bot Soc 139:416–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MJ, Carstenn S, Lane CR (2004) Floristic quality indices for biotic assessment of depressional marsh condition in Florida. Ecol Appl 14:784–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole CA (2006) HGM and wetland functional assessment: six degrees of separation from the data? Ecol Indic 6:485–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis CA, Dvorett D, Bidwell JR, Brinson MM (2013) Hydrogeomorphic classification and functional assessment. In: Anderson JT, Davis CA (eds) Wetland techniques volume 3: applications and management. Springer Dordrecht, New York, pp 29–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Cáceres M, Legendre P (2009) Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90:3566–3574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Cáceres M, Legendre P, Wiser SK, Brotons L (2012) Using species combinations in indicator value analyses. Methods Ecol Evol 3:973–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Development Core Team R (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon PM (2001) The bootstrap and jackknife: describing the precision of ecological indices. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, pp 267–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Dvorett D, Bidwell J, Davis C, DuBois C (2012) Developing a hydrogeomorphic wetland inventory: reclassifying National Wetlands Inventory polygons in Geographic Information Systems. Wetlands 32:83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/ CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2007) An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:543–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell D, Bidwell JR, Davis CA (2007) A comparison of natural and created depressional wetlands in central Oklahoma using metrics from indices of biological integrity. Wetlands 27:794–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins CP, Olson JR, Hill RA (2010) The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:312–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henley JE, Harrison MS (2000) The Oklahoma wetlands reference guide. Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlihy AT, Paulsen SG, Van Sickle J, Stoddard JL, Hawkins CP, Yuan LL (2008) Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference condition approach at a continental scale. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:860–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs AD, Kentula ME, Herlihy AT (2010) Developing an index of condition from ecological data: an example using HGM functional variables from the Nanticoke watershed, USA. Ecol Indic 10:703–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston CA, Ghioca DM, Tulbure M, Bedford BL, Bourdaghs M, Frieswyk CB (2008) Partitioning vegetation response to anthropogenic stress to develop multi-taxa wetland indicators. Ecol Appl 18:983–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston CA, Zedler JB, Tulbure MG, Frieswyk CB, Bedford BL, Vaccaro L (2009) A unifying approach for evaluating the condition of wetland plant communities and identifying related stressors. Ecol Appl 19:1739–1757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TE, Andrews MP, Szuch RP, Whigham DF, Weller DE, Jacobs AD (2007) Comparing functional assessments of wetlands to measurements of soil characteristics and nitrogen processing. Wetlands 27:479–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunde KB, Resh VH (2012) Development and validation of a macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (IBI) for assessing urban impacts to Northern California freshwater wetlands. Environ Monit Assess 184:3653–3674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe DJ, Hayes-Pontius EM, Canepa A, Berry KS, Levine BC (2012) Measuring standardized effect size improves interpretation of biomonitoring studies and facilitates meta-analysis. Freshw Sci 31:800–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medley L, Scozzafava M (2009) Moving toward a national floristic quality assessment: considerations for the EPA national wetland condition assessment. Nat Wetl Newsl 31(1):6–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rader RB, Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (eds) (2001) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynoldson TB, Norris RH, Resh VH, Day KE, Rosenberg DM (1997) The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:833–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scozzafava M, Kentula ME, Riley E, Magee TK, Serenbetz G, Sumner R, Faulkner C, Price M (2011) The national wetland condition assessment: national data on wetland quality to inform and improve wetlands protection. Nat Wetl Newsl 33(2):11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith LM, Euliss NH Jr, Wilcox DA, Brinson MM (2008) Application of a geomorphic and temporal perspective to wetland management in North America. Wetlands 28:563–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soranno PA, Wagner T, Martin SL, McLean C, Novitski LN, Provence CD, Rober AR (2011) Quantifying regional reference conditions for freshwater ecosystem management: a comparison of approaches and future research needs. Lake Reserv Manag 27:138–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stander EK, Ehrenfeld JG (2009) Rapid assessment of urban wetlands: do hydrogeomorphic classification and reference criteria work? Environ Manag 43:725–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein ED, Fetscher AE, Clark RP, Wiskind A, Grenier JL, Sutula M, Collins JN, Grosso C (2009) Validation of a wetland rapid assessment method: use of EPA’s level 1-2-3 framework for method testing and refinement. Wetlands 29:648–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard JL (2005) Use of ecological regions in aquatic assessments of ecological condition. Environ Manag 34:61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP, Johnson RK, Norris RH (2006) Setting expectations for the ecological condition of running waters: the concept of reference condition. Ecol Appl 16:1267–1276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swink F, Wilhelm G (1994) Plants of the Chicago region, 4th edn. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Szkokan-Emilson EJ, Wesolek BE, Gunn JM, Sarrazin-Delay C, Bedore J, Chan F, Garreau D, O’Grady A, Robinson C (2010) Recovery of benthic invertebrate communities from acidification in Killarney Park lakes. Environ Monit Assess 166:293–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taft JB, Wilhelm GS, Ladd DM, Masters LA (1997) Floristic quality assessment for vegetation in Illinois: a method for assessing vegetation integrity. Erigenia 15:3–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Valois AE, Keller WB, Ramcharan CW (2011) Recovery in a multiple stressor environment: using the reference condition approach to examine zooplankton community change along opposing gradients. J Plankton Res 33:1417–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle J (2010) Correlated metrics yield multimetric indices with inferior performance. Trans Am Fish Soc 139:1802–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veselka WE IV, Anderson JT (2013) Wetland indices of biological integrity. In: Anderson JT, Davis CA (eds) Wetland techniques volume 3: applications and management. Springer Dordrecht, New York, pp 1–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Whittier TR, Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Herlihy AT (2007) Selecting reference sites for stream biological assessments: best professional judgment or objective criteria. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:349–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zomlefer WB, Chafin LG, Carter JR, Giannasi DE (2013) Coefficient of conservatism rankings for the flora of Georgia: wetland indicator species. Southeast Nat 12:790–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was made possible by a Wetland Program Development Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. Thanks to Bruce Hoagland for assigning coefficients of conservatism and verifying plant identifications, Miquel De Cáceres for advice on the indicator value analysis, and two reviewers for helping us improve the manuscript. Josh Crane provided extensive help with field work and data entry, and Tommi Fouts devoted considerable time to entering data and creating tables. We also appreciate the field assistance from Anthony Burger, Dan Dvorett, Jahna Hill, Alex Holman, and Hillary Loring. Lastly we thank the numerous property owners, refuge staff, and state biologists who granted access to study sites. Darrin Unruh, manager of the Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge, was especially helpful during this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, 501 Life Sciences West, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Jason T. Bried & Andrew R. Dzialowski

  2. Department of Natural Sciences, Northeastern State University, 611 North Grand Avenue, Tahlequah, OK, 74464, USA

    Suneeti K. Jog

  3. Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, 008C Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Craig A. Davis

Authors
  1. Jason T. Bried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suneeti K. Jog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew R. Dzialowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Craig A. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason T. Bried.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 147 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bried, J.T., Jog, S.K., Dzialowski, A.R. et al. Potential Vegetation Criteria for Identifying Reference-Quality Wetlands in the South-Central United States. Wetlands 34, 1159–1169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-014-0575-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-014-0575-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation