Complexity of bioindicator selection for ecological, human, and cultural health: Chinook salmon and red knot as case studies
- 692 Downloads
There is considerable interest in developing bioindicators of ecological health that are also useful indicators for human health. Yet, human health assessment usually encompasses physical/chemical exposures and not cultural well-being. In this paper, we propose that bioindicators can be selected for all three purposes. We use Chinook or king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa, a sandpiper) as examples of indicators that can be used to assess human, ecological, and cultural health. Even so, selecting endpoints or metrics for each indicator species is complex and is explored in this paper. We suggest that there are several endpoint types to examine for a given species, including physical environment, environmental stressors, habitat, life history, demography, population counts, and cultural/societal aspects. Usually cultural endpoints are economic indicators (e.g., number of days fished, number of hunting licenses), rather than the importance of a fishing culture. Development of cultural/societal endpoints must include the perceptions of local communities, cultural groups, and tribal nations, as well as governmental and regulatory communities (although not usually so defined, the latter have cultures as well). Endpoint selection in this category is difficult because the underlying issues need to be identified and used to develop endpoints that tribes and stakeholders themselves see as reasonable surrogates of the qualities they value. We describe several endpoints for salmon and knots that can be used for ecological, human, and cultural/societal health.
KeywordsIndicators Human health Ecological health Endpoints Cultural health Subsistence
We thank the many people who we have discussed these topics with us or who have helped in the research, including L. Bliss, A. Bunn, E. DeVito, C. Duncan, C. Frank, M. Gilbertson, C. Jeitner, D. Jenkins, C. Minton, T. Pittfield, H. Sitters, and other field volunteers, as well as regulators and other governmental officials, tribal members associated with Hanford, and especially the Aleut people in Alaska who greatly influenced our views. We thank the many organizations and individuals who contributed throughout this research. This project was mainly funded by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (Department of Energy, DE-FC01-86EW07053), with additional funding from NIEHS (P30ES005022), US Fish and Wildlife Foundation, NJ Department of Environmental Protection (Endangered and Nongame Program), Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey, Endangered and Nongame Species Program of the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, and Rutgers University. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the funding agencies.
- Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) (2001). Carl N. Shuster Jr. Horseshoe crab reserve designated. Fisheries Focus. 10(2):8–9.Google Scholar
- Baker, A. J., Gonzalez, P. M., Piersma, T., Niles, L. J., deLima S.do Nascimento, I., Atkinson, P. W., Collins, P., Clark, N. A., Minton, C. D. T., Peck, M. K., & Aarts, G. (2004). Rapid population decline in Red Knots: fitness consequences of refuelling rates and late arrival in Delaware Bay. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 271, 875–882.Google Scholar
- Bingham, G., Bishop, R., Brody, M., Bromley, D., Clark, E. E., Cooper, W., Costanza, R., Hale, T., Hayden, G., Kellert, S., Norgaard, R., Norton, B., Payne, J., Russell, C., & Suter, G. (1995). Issues in ecosystems valuation: improving information for decision making. Ecological Economy, 14, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bohnee, G., Mathews, J. P., Pinkham, J., Smith, A., & Stanfill, J. (2011). Nez Perce involvement with solving environmental problems: history, perspectives, treaty rights, and obligations. In J. Burger (Ed.), Stakeholders and scientists: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues (pp. 149–184). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2004). Bioindicators for assessing human and ecological health. In G. B. Wiersma (Ed.), Environmental monitoring (pp. 541–566). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
- Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C. W., Clarke, J. H., Brown, K., Kosson, D., Niles, L., Dey, A., Jeitner, C., & Pittfield, T. (2013b). Determining environmental impacts for sensitive species: using iconic species as bioindicators for management and policy. Journal of Environmental Protection, 4, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cairns J Jr. (Ed). (1980). The recovery process in damaged ecosystems. Ann arbor, Michigan:Ann Arbor Service.Google Scholar
- Chelan County Public Utility (Chelan). (2012). Mid-Columbia Salmon Species. http://www.chelanpud.org/mid-columbia-salmon-species.html. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.
- Collis, K., Roby, D. D., Craig, D. P., Ryan, B. A., & Ledgerwood, R. D. (2001). Colonial waterbird predation on juvenile salmonids tagged with passive integrated transponders in the Columbia River estuary: vulnerability of different salmonid species, stocks, and rearing types. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 5, 1831–1841.Google Scholar
- Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). (2013). We are all Salmon People, CRITFC. http://critfc.org/salmon-culture/columbia-river-salmon/columbia-river-salmon-species. Accessed 17 Nov 2013.
- Costanza, R. (1993). Developing ecological research that is relevant to achieving sustainability. Ecological Applications, 3, 579–581.Google Scholar
- Dauble, D.D., Poston, T.M., Patton, G.W., & Peterson, R.E. (2003a). Evaluation of the effects of chromium on fall Chinook Salmon in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River: integration of recent toxicity test results. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy .DE-AC06-76RL0183. 62 pp.Google Scholar
- DiGuilio, R. T., & Monosson, E. (Eds.). (1996). Interconnections between human and ecological health. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
- Donley, E. E., Naiman, R. J., & Marineau, M. D. (2012). Strategic planning for instream flow restoration: a case study of potential climate change impacts in the central Columbia River basin. Global Change Biology, 18(10), 3071–3086.Google Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2000). Evaluation Guidelines for ecological indicators: evaluation criteria. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecol_ind.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2009.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008). Biological indicators of watershed health. EPA, Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/html/wqscore.html. Accessed 22 July 2009.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Columbia River Basin: State of the River Report for Toxics. EPA 910-R-08-004.EPA, Region 4. http://www.nptwaterresources.org/Docs%20and%20Reports/Water%20Quality/Columbia_R_Basin_State_of_the_River_Report.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2009
- Farag, A. M., Harper, D. D., Cleveland, L., Brumbaugh, W. G., & Little, E. E. (2006a). The potential for chromium to affect the fertilization process of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Washington, USA. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 50, 575–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fox, G. (Ed.). (1994). Bioindicators as a measure of success for virtual elimination of persistence toxic substances. Hull, Quebec, Canada: International Joint Comm.Google Scholar
- Fox, G. A. (2001). Wildlife as sentinels of human health effects in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 853–861.Google Scholar
- Fulton, L.A. (1968). Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River Basin—past and present. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, Fisheries No. 571, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Goss-Custard, J. D., Stillman, R. A., West, A. D., McGrorty, S., Durell, S. E. A. E. V. D., & Caldow, R. W. G. (2000). The role of behavioural models in predicting the ecological impact of harvesting. In L. M. Gosling & W. J. Sutherland (Eds.), Behaviour and conservation (pp. 65–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Groot, C., & Margolis, L. (Eds.). (1991). Pacific Salmon: life history. Vancouver BC: University British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
- Hamrick, K., & Smith, J. (2003). Subsistence food use in Unalaska and Nikolski. Anchorage, AK: Aleutian/Pribilof Island Association.Google Scholar
- Hanrahan, T. P., Dauble, D. D., & Geist, D. R. (2004). An estimate of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning habitat and red capacity upstream of a migration barrier in the upper Columbia River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 61(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
- Hardell, S., Tilander,H., Smith, G.W., Burger, J., & Carpenter D.O. (2010). Levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and three organochlorine pesticides in fish from the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. PloS One 5, 1–11.Google Scholar
- Hatten, J. R., Tiffan, K. F., Anglin, D. R., Haeseker, S. L., Skalicky, J. J., & Schaller, H. (2009). A spatial model to assess the effects of hydropower operations on Columbia River fall Chinook Salmon spawning habitat. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 29, 1379–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Honea, J. M., Jorgensen, J. C., McCLURE, M. M., Cooney, T. D., Engie, K., Holzer, D. M., & Hilborn, R. (2009). Evaluating habitat effects on population status: influence of habitat restoration on spring run Chinook salmon. Freshwater Biology, 54(7), 1576–1592.Google Scholar
- Landeen, D., & Pinkham, A. (1999). Salmon and his people. Lewiston, Idaho: Confluence.Google Scholar
- Linthurst, R. A., Bourdeau, P., & Tardiff, R. G. (1995). Methods to assess the effects of chemicals on ecosystems. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Mendelsohn, M. L., Mohr, L. C., & Peeters, J. P. (1998). Biomarkers: medical and workplace applications. Wash. DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
- Morrison, R. I. G., McCaffery, B. J., Gil, R. E., Skagen, S. K., Jones, S. L., Page, G. W., Gratto-Trevor, C. L., & Andres, B. A. (2006). Population estimates of North American shorebirds. Wader Study Group Bulletin, 111, 67–85.Google Scholar
- Mueller, R. P. & Ward, D. L. (2010). Characterization of fall Chinook salmon spawning areas downstream. Final Report. PNWD-56286. Prepared for the Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Ephrata, WA. 61 pp.Google Scholar
- Mueller, R. M., Vernon, C. R., & Langshaw R. B. (2012). Evaluation of Fallback and Reascension of Fall ChinookSalmon as They Relate to Escapement to the Hanford Reach. PNWD-4264. Prepared for the Public Utility DistrictNo. 2 of Grant County, Ephrata, WA.31 pp.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (NRC). (1991). Animals as sentinels of environmental health hazards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (NRC). (1996). Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
- Niles, L. J., Sitters, H. P., Dey, A. D., Atkinson, P. W., Baker, A. J., Bennett, K. A., Carmona, R., Clark, K. E., Clark, N. A., Espoz, C., González, P. M., Harrington, B. A., Hernández, D. E., Kalasz, K. S., Lathrop, R. G., Matus, R. N., Minton, C. D. T., Morrison, R. I. G., Peck, M. K., Pitts, W., Robinson, R. A., & Serrano, I. L. (2008). Status of the Red Knot, Calidris canutus rufa, in the Western Hemisphere. Studies of Avian Biology, 36, 1–185.Google Scholar
- Niles, L., Burger, J., Porter, R., Dey, A., Minton, C., Gonzalez, P., Baker, A., Fox, J., & Gordon, C. (2010). First results using light level geolocators to track Red Knots in the Western Hemisphere show rapid anf long intercontinental flights and new details of migration pathways. Wader Study Group Bulletin, 117, 1–8.Google Scholar
- Oregon Hanford Waste Board (OHWB). (2002). River without waste: recommendations for protecting the Columbia River from Hanford Site nuclear waste. USDOE, Hanford.Google Scholar
- Piersma, T., Wiersma, P., & Van Gills, J. (1997). The many unknowns about plovers and sandpipers of the world: introduction to a wealth of research opportunities highly relevant for shorebird conservation. Wader Study Group Bulletin, 82, 23–33.Google Scholar
- Risebrough, R. W. (1991). Indicator species, birds, toxic contaminants, and global change. Acta 20th Congressional and International Ornithology, 20, 2480–2486.Google Scholar
- Schreck, C. B., Stahl, T. P., Davis, L. E., Roby, D. D., & Clemens, B. J. (2006). Mortality estimates of juvenile spring-summer Chinook Salmon in the lower Columbia River and estuary, 1992-1998: evidence of delayed mortality. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Species Profile: Chinook Salmon. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06D. Accessed 17 Jan 2013.
- Williams, R. N. (Ed.). (2006). Return to the river: restoring salmon to the Columbia River. New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Williams, R. N., Bisson, P. A., Botton, D. L., Calvin, L. D., Coutant, C. C., Erho, M. W., Jr., Frissell, C. A., Lichatowich, J. A., Liss, W. J., McConnaha, W. E., Mundy, P. R., Stanford, J. A., & Whitney, R. R. (1999). Return to the River: scientific issues in the restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River. Fisheries, 24, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar