Environmental Management

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 445–455 | Cite as

Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem health

  • David J. Schaeffer
  • Edwin E. Herricks
  • Harold W. Kerster


Ecosystem analysis has been advanced by an improved understanding of how ecosystems are structured and how they function. Ecology has advanced from an emphasis on natural history to consideration of energetics, the relationships and connections between species, hierarchies, and systems theory. Still, we consider ecosystems as entities with a distinctive character and individual characteristics. Ecosystem maintenance and preservation form the objective of impact analysis, hazard evaluation, and other management or regulation activities. In this article we explore an approach to ecosystem analysis which identifies and quantifies factors which define the condition or state of an ecosystem in terms of health criteria. We relate ecosystem health to human/nonhuman animal health and explore the difficulties of defining ecosystem health and suggest criteria which provide a functional definition of state and condition. We suggest that, as has been found in human/nonhuman animal health studies, disease states can be recognized before disease is of clinical magnitude. Example disease states for ecosystems are functionally defined and discussed, together with test systems for their early detection.

Key words

Impact assessment Environmental analysis Ecosystem processes Ecosystem health Ecoepidemiology Study design assurance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Allen, T. F. H., R. V. O'Neill, and T. W. Hoekstra. 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy theory. General Technical Report RM-110, United States Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  2. APHA. 1985. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewaters, 16th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Aquatic Ecosystem Objectives Committee. 1985. 1985 annual report. Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.Google Scholar
  4. Bro-Rasmussen, F., and H. Lokke. 1984. Ecoepidemiology— a casuistic discipline describing ecological disturbances and damages in relation to their specific causes: exemplified by chlorinated phenols and chlorophenoxy acids.Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 4:391–399.Google Scholar
  5. Cairns, J., Jr. 1986. What is meant by validation of predictions based on laboratory toxicity tests?Hydrobiologia 137:271–278.Google Scholar
  6. Cairns, J., Jr., and J. R. Pratt. 1986. On the relation between structural and functional analyses of ecosystems.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 5:785–786.Google Scholar
  7. Diem, K., and C. Lentner (eds.). 1971. Pages 307–764in Documenta geigy: scientific tables. Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basle, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  8. Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  9. Herricks, E. E., and J. Cairns, Jr. 1983. Biological monitoring. Part III. Receiving system methodology based on community structure.Water Research 16:144–153.Google Scholar
  10. Herricks, E. E., and L. L. Osborne. 1985. Water quality restoration and protection in streams and rivers. Pages 1–20in J. Gore (ed.), The restoration of rivers and streams. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Herricks, E. E., and D. J. Schaeffer. 1987a. Selection of test systems for ecological analysis.Water Science and Technology 19(11):47–54.Google Scholar
  12. Herricks, E. E., and D. J. Schaeffer. 1987b.Selection of Test Systems to Evaluate the Effects of Contaminants on Ecological Systems. Civil Engineering Studies. Environmental Engineering Series No. 17. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Herricks, E. E., D. J. Schaeffer, and J. A. Perry. 1988. Biomonitoring: closing the loop in the environmental sciences.In S. Levin (ed.), Environmental Biology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, in press.Google Scholar
  14. Hutton, M. 1982. The role of wildlife species in the assessment of biological impact from chronic exposure to persistent chemicals.Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 6:471–478.Google Scholar
  15. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.Fisheries 6(6):21–27.Google Scholar
  16. Margalef, R. 1975. Human impact on transportation and diversity in ecosystems. How far is extrapolation valid? Pages 273–241in Proceedings of the first international congress of ecology: structure, functioning and management of ecosystems, The Hague 8–14, September 1974. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. May, R. M. 1977. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states.Nature 269:471–477.Google Scholar
  18. Merck & Co. 1986. The Merck veterinary manual, 6th ed. Merck & Co., Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Novak, E. E., D. B. Porcella, K. M. Johnson, E. E. Herricks, and D. J. Schaeffer. 1985. Selection of test methods to assess ecological effects of mixed aerosols.Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 10:361–381.Google Scholar
  20. O'Neill, R. V., D. L. DeAngelis, J. B. Waide, and T. F. H. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  21. Ott, W. 1978. Environmental indices: theory and practice. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  22. Paine, R. T. 1980. Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure.Journal of Animal Ecology 49:667–685.Google Scholar
  23. Perry, J. A., D. J. Schaeffer, and E. E. Herricks. 1987. Innovative designs for environmental monitoring: are we asking the questions before the data are collected? Pages 28–39in T. P. Boyle (ed.), New approaches to monitoring aquatic ecosystems. ASTM STP 940, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  24. Rapport, D. J., H. A. Riegier, and T. C. Hutchinson. 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress.American Naturalist 125:617–640.Google Scholar
  25. Schaeffer, D. J., D. K. Cox, and R. A. Deem. 1987. Variability of test systems used to assess ecological effects of chemicals.Water Science and Technology 19(11):39–45.Google Scholar
  26. Schaeffer, D. J., H. W. Kerster, J. A. Perry, and D. K. Cox. 1985. The environmental audit: I: concepts.Environmental Management 9:191–198.Google Scholar
  27. Shelford, V. E. 1913. Animal communities in temperate America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Sokolik, S. L., and D. J. Schaeffer. 1986. Environmental audit: III: improving the management of environmental information for toxic substances.Environmental Management 10:311–317.Google Scholar
  29. Tansley, A. G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms.Ecology 16:284–307.Google Scholar
  30. USEPA. 1986. Solicitation DL 86-003. Stream vulnerability and recovery research.Commerce Business Daily, 11 June 1986, p.2.Google Scholar
  31. Westman, W. E. 1978. Measuring the inertia and resilience of ecosystems.BioScience 28:705–711.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. New York Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Schaeffer
    • 1
  • Edwin E. Herricks
    • 2
  • Harold W. Kerster
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Veterinary BiosciencesUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Environmental Studies CenterCalifornia State University, SacramentoSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations